BDSM And Feminism: Intertwined? How So?

[DowntownAmber]

It seems the "Old School" thread has gotten hijacked just a ticky, so I thought a thread for the offshoot conversation might be worthwhile.

Do you consider yourself a "feminist?" What is your definition of one? Do you have a negative or positive view of feminists in general? Does feminism affect your day to day? How does it play into your BSDM lifestyle?

Answer what you want, ignore what you don't, add anything you think deserves to be covered.

Go crazy! ;)

[Euryleia]

Do you consider yourself a "feminist?"

Very much so.

What is your definition of one?

It is fairly broad--Feminism refers to my belief in social, political, sexual and economic equality between men and women. At its most essential, feminism is the effort to choose what is right for me and what makes me whole irregardless of societal or gender roles.

Do you have a negative or positive view of feminists in general?

Highly positive. From the women who were pioneers in their fields to the waves of modern feminists, all people have benefited from the efforts to make things more inclusive and their encouragement that all women should be able to achieve their full potential.

Does feminism affect your day to day?

Yes, it colors how I view the world and my political conscience.

How does it play into your BSDM lifestyle?

The way that I see it, as long as the activity is consensual - as long as the parties are adults and mature enough to decide for themselves what makes them orgasm and what makes them feel whole, that the choices a woman makes in pursuit of her sexual satisfaction is her right as a human. Whether a particular woman is Dominant, submissive or switches between the roles, she is simply acting upon what makes her feel like a complete woman and is, therefore, exercising her feminism in the highest regard.

[GS42]

My view on the subject as a whole, not an answer to the questions posed.

I see BDSM and feminism as something entwined. The basic idea behind feminism as I've always seen it, is that women are equal to men and are free to make their own choices. The apparant paradox with a female submissive is quite obvious: how is she equal as a slave and how is she free if she has to obey (a man)?

What turns it all 'round is the fact that submissives make the choice to submit. I don't think anyone here would argue one person having a born right to rule someone else: it's all consensual. And if someone dreams of submitting, why should he/she not be allowed to? Feminists have worked hard to give women freedom to choose.

The only thing which does bug me is that some feminists clearly do not respect the choice of submissive women and think they should be protected from doing the wrong thing. This to me is an ultimate insult to both the submissives and the ideals of feminism.

And no, I never really considered myself a feminist. ;)

[IAmCanadian]

Not sure if this has anything to do with anything but here's a view from my end:

I love feminism because it provides the sharpest contrast to misogyny, which I find to be a very erotic BDSM play element.

The reason is simple- if taboo is exciting, and taboo is based on deviation from the norm, then what is more of a deviation? A hooker begging for a slap in the face? Or a Riot Grrrl doing the same?

Feminism lends itself to rituals of servitude simply because it casts the extremity of the sacrifice being made into sharp relief. I could use a "doormat" as my footstool for an hour but what is she really giving up, when she has no convictions or self-esteem anyway? I wouldn't even want to do that, it would be like taking advantage of an invalid.

Now, a feminist serving as my footstool- that's a noteworthy gesture of submission. As a feminist she has a full grasp of the implications of her act, but she does it anyway. That's hot, and it proves more in terms of devotion and trust than a hundred meek and mouse-like submissives happily performing the same act.

- FS

[Emerson]

My short answer, as a male dominant...

I don't see any reason why a woman can't be a dominant, and a man a submissive. Each relationship is different, and the submission in a BDSM relationship is the result of individuals making choices for themselves, not - hopefully - the action of social repression and sexual discrimination.

As a man, I'm not sure I could say I'm a "feminist," per se, especially because of the transformation of the word "feminism" from a term refering to the emancipation of women from a real, unjust, and ingrained servitude into a term for a kind of fringy stereotype. I will say, though, that I respect the hell out of the feminist movement, and I am dismayed at what a cursory job most American History classes do of covering the remarkable efforts of women, especially in the 19th century. Feminism was not just about winning the vote, or the equality of women, but women were leading Abolitionists, and played a vital role in leading the labor fight against the robber-barons of the age.

While I hardly think women have truly won equality in the modern world, the progress made is partially responsible for making the modern, ironically egalitarian culture in the BDSM world possible.

[leo9]

I have always been a feminist, by instinct first and conviction later. Being bisexual helps: since my preference for dominating women is only a preference (men are fun, but women are cuddly), I never got it mixed up with my politics.

All my partners have been militant feminists whose view, like mine, was that if they chose to submit to a man in private that was their personal right. Like Seraph, I find it far more exciting to dominate and humble a strong woman who believes in her freedom. Femsubs who say things like "this worthless cunt is only of value when it has a Master" turn me right off (no offence, girls, it's just my taste - oh, wait, you wouldn't take offence anyway). On the other hand, if I can make a ball-breaking bitch say that in the throes of abject submission, =then= it's a massive charge.

My wife and I used to have a pair of badges that said I'M A FEMINIST AND SO IS MY MASTER / I'M A FEMINIST AND SO IS MY SLAVEGIRL. They started a lot of interesting conversations at conventions.

By the way, when my wife (who also switched) was still looking for malesubs to play with, one of the things that eventually made her give up was that the sort of men who said "I'm a feminist because I believe in the Superior Female" (their capitals) usually turned out to be hardcore male chauvinists the moment you got past the pose. Interesting, that.

[angela_shy]

Do you consider yourself a "feminist?"
yes although not militant in any way. i was a little bit in the past, but it brought me feelings of frustration - i'd see slights where none were intended. evidence of my historical rebellion: i still refer to myself as "Ms" and never adopted my spouse's surname.

What is your definition of one?
it's about empowerment to me - the equal rights of people, regardless of gender, to participate in society and interact on a personal level.

Do you have a negative or positive view of feminists in general?
Sadly negative. Germaine Greer etc... smiles. intellectual. humourless. a bit intimidating and sometimes so opinionated they are not receptive to other ideas. In this respect i am very much NOT a feminist... LOL

Does feminism affect your day to day?
it defines my name. it defines how i raise my daughter. i actively seek to empower her, and teach her she can be anything she wants if she works hard enough.
it also colours my marriage. i've been a bit militant in my views, and futilely head-butted against institutional sexism. Although i reject that strong emotion (militancy?) now, and i agree that sometimes opportunities should sometimes gender-biased, the experiences are not forgotten. i'm getting softer :)


How does it play into your BSDM lifestyle?
it's Very Early Days for me!
my softening of my views empowers me. i still have the ability to choose my path, but where once i'd have felt submission as counter to feminism, now i feel submission is the ultimate expression of my empowerment as a woman. it's my choice.
Old habits die hard however. i've changed most since i had my daughter. i finally admitted [hetero] men and women are psychologically different, and it was "OK" to be feminine... mind blowing experience! (Whatever "feminine" means.)

hmmm

*starts to contemplate the relationship between femininity and feminism...

[icey]

nope im not a feminist, im a woman in a mans AND womans world.
im not sure there actually is such a thing as feminism anymore at least not in the way it was originally the militant type if you want to call it that, like many things its become a part of society and life now and women are accepted as equals except by the odd few idiots who want to put on an act of ''manliness'' and even then id say they're bullys rather than anti-equal rights as such.
if there's such a thing as feminism these days then how come there isnt a ''masculinism''? because very often in todays society men are the ones who are often considered and treat as the weaker sex with less rights! by less rights i mean in the way of what they are expected to do/not do how to treat a woman/not treat her...if that makes any sense?

feminism was originally about women fighting for the right to be equal, have the vote, have the right to speak for themselves,have equal opportunities etc well as far as im aware we have that dont we? in fact we're usually the ''revered'' and most respected of the two sexes in general.
and in relation to bdsm i can never quite understand how the two could ever possibly be connected or questioned, because women have the right to choose whether or not they wish to be submissive or Dominant and unless in an abusive r/ship and forced into submission (which is a totally seperate issue from bdsm) then they're choosing to submit of there own free will they are able to make that choice because they have the right the freedom and the confidence to do so.

am probably going off at a tangent again sorry...they're just a few of my thoughts.

[PropertyOfMasterJoey]

i am a feminist by definition, but it's not something i like to refer to myself as one due to the negative connotation it has for me personally. i'm just someone who believes everyone is equal regardless of sex, race, religion, or sexuality and that shapes my bdsm life more than feminism alone.

[leo9]

feminism was originally about women fighting for the right to be equal, have the vote, have the right to speak for themselves,have equal opportunities etc well as far as im aware we have that dont we?
Except that women are still in the majority at the bottom end of the world of work, doing the shit jobs that they can't get men to do for the price, and in a minority in management that gets smaller the higher you go. If they're naturally equal, then the system is still loaded against them; you can't have it both ways.

and in relation to bdsm i can never quite understand how the two could ever possibly be connected or questioned, because women have the right to choose whether or not they wish to be submissive or Dominant and unless in an abusive r/ship and forced into submission (which is a totally seperate issue from bdsm) then they're choosing to submit of there own free will they are able to make that choice because they have the right the freedom and the confidence to do so.
Ah, these young folks...

Long, long ago, when a computer was a million-dollar toy for colleges and a mobile phone was a backpack radio, feminism was ripped apart by the issue of BDSM. Not, you understand, in the Mf sense or even Fm - in those days hard core feminists didn't have sex with men anyhow - but over whether it was politically OK for lesbians to do BDSM, or whether they were "internalising patriarchy" and should be re-educated to understand that violence and dominance were male vices shunned by properly empowered women.

There were a few holdouts still fighting the Lesbian SM Wars when I got involved in the '90s, so I know people weren't making this stuff up. If anyone's interested, "Coming to Power" by Samois is still available discussing the issues from our side, and Dworkin's various works probably give the best view of the other side.

[denuseri]

Do you consider yourself a "feminist?"
I am as far from it as possible! In so far as the overtly militant side of it's dogma is conserned. In fact I am more of a Trancendentalist or Nietzschean.

What is your definition of one?
the politically correct answer or what my heart says?
the pc answer is "its all about human rights etc"
my heart says via observation of how too many feminists portray themselves with sophist verve is: its apparently all about "emasculation" and vengence and the resulting self loathing that accompianies such behavior when the bio-ethical balance is upset.

Do you have a negative or positive view of feminists in general?
LMAO I think i answered that one allready

Does feminism affect your day to day?
Oh I don't know (all innocent and blind) does the fact that i have been force fed it allmost every single day of my life have anything to do with it? (smiles as i put my little beast back in my self) blushes

How does it play into your BSDM lifestyle?
fortunately i have a man that is strong enough to have seen past all the "feminist brainwashing" of the past few decades" and cheerish me like a woman deserves, which is why our relationship thrives

[blythe spirit]

I am most probably the one that "hijacked" J-Go's thread a "ticky," and for that I apologize.

To answer your questions in less than a novel-sized response is near impossible. As we know feminists date back as far as the 18th century. But to me, there is a big difference between "Women's Liberation" in an era where women were to be seen and not heard, to the modern day "Feminist Movement," where a group of misandrist plotted to do away with men altogether. I am speaking of the radicals, who gave feminists the "bad name."

There were "strong" women in all eras and their names went down in history. They rebelled against patriarchy, where women had their names dirtied by men for "taking a stand." Mary Magdolene might be one such woman, who was falsely accused of being a "prostitute" by the patriachy, because of her political beliefs and for speaking her mind.

Anway, I shant go off on a tangent; however, if by definition a "feminist" is one who believes that women have the right to speak their minds, vote their political conscience, hold the same positions and earn the same wages as a man, etc., then I, too, am a feminist, along with Elenor Roosevelt, Amelia Earhart, Dorothy Parker, Helen Keller and a plethora of other strong leaders in history.

On the other hand, if it means beating men down to nothingness and obliterating them entirely, then I am not a feminist. If I have to agree that a woman is nothing but a "man's slave" if she so chooses to be a homemaker and stay-at-home mom, then I disagree wholeheartedly with their plight.

As I stated in the "other" thread, women have gained the right to go out and work 8 and 12 hours a day and then come home and cook, clean, do laundry, ready the kids for bed, etc. and still have the energy to be sexy for her man. This statement was posted half jokingly, but in part, is truth, because a lot of men have yet to catch up with the "feminist movement" and still believe that the above mentioned are "women's chores."

As was once thought by men that they did not need women for anything other than sex and to bear children, it is now fact that women do not need men...even for that.

Being a homemaker, wife, mother, used to be a noble profession, and it's been proven that a man could not afford to pay a homemaker's worth in salary. Unfortunately, it is, of course, near impossible for a man to have the luxury of a homemaker with today's ecomonomy. That's a whole other story, though.

In "fighting" for women's rights in such a radical way, I believe we, as women have given up a great deal of our right to femininity and until we stop using the word "fight" (as someone much more intelligent than I stated) we will continue to be at war.

*laughing* I probably didn't answer but one of your questions. Sorry.

[claire]

I am most probably the one that "hijacked" J-Go's thread a "ticky," and for that I apologize.



Darn it, I wanted credit for that hijack. My post was before yours. :icon176:

Yes I am a feminist, in terms of equal rights. No I am not a militant feminist wanting to get rid of all men and treating women as superior. Anyone who thinks women have achieved equal rights has not looked at labor statistics that clearly show the women with the same degree of education and experience, still make less than men.

In most of the two parent families that I know of, the woman is still the primary care giver for the children and the one expected to take time off for sick children etc. Cooking and household chores seem rarely to divided equitably either. I am not saying to be equal that each person should do half of each type of chore. We all have individual preferences and talents. What I oppose is a division of labor where a woman must do a double shift. First putting in an 8 hour day for wages, then coming home and putting in an 8 hour day there. The studies I've seen show that men put in many fewer hours at home than women do.

Now maybe this is all just part of me showing my age. Maybe the younger generation does have a more equitable arrangement. I might be like the people who said Obama isn't black enough because he didn't go through the civil rights era and isn't still carrying the frustrations of being part of an underclass. Yet, I would argue, that like minorities, women still have not gained full equality. Why else would the media have talked about Hilary Clinton putting cracks in the glass ceiling?

As far as it influences my life, well it did take me a couple of decades or so to realize that being feminine did not contradict being a feminist. Now I would argue just the opposite. Embracing our femininity and the differences between men and women and valuing those differences, should be the focus of today's feminism. As far as how it effects my BDSM life, well feminism is about having equal opportunities and choices and that means I can choose to be a sub or a Dom or neither or both.

[blythe spirit]

Darn it, I wanted credit for that hijack. My post was before yours. :icon176:





I will be more than happy to share the blame with you. I took the blame, cos I didn't want to point a finger...but -
hehehe.

[Ragoczy]

Do you consider yourself a "feminist?"

No, I don't consider myself a feminist. If anything on that topic, I think I'd characterize myself an "equalist", meaning that I believe in equal pay, rights, etc.

Not that I think men and women are entirely "equal", because differences in biology and mental processes do, in general, create things that men and women are, in general, each better at than the other.


What is your definition of one?

When I think "feminist", I think N.O.W. Which makes me think of someone who denigrates mothers who've chosen to stay home with their children and someone who minimizes the importance of fathers in children's lives.


Do you have a negative or positive view of feminists in general?

Negative.

[SnickerKitten]

No, I do not consider myself a feminist. In my view, feminism cheapens what it means to be a woman.

I will say, that in the work force I absolutely believe that women should be paid the same as men and have all the opportunities available to men. Course, if you really want to get into it deep, I also believe that all children in a two parent home should have a parent at home with them. I don't believe it should always be the mother, but I do believe that it should be a parent. Don't get all up in my face about how the majority of families can't afford that and what not because if one parent in every two parent family quit their job to stay home that would diminish the available workforce by a huge percentage (NOT gonna do the research right now to figure out what it would be!) and therefore the demand for the available workforce would go up and thus so would the pay. Nevermind all that though, there are many other issues with our society today to be handled before that one!

As far as being "equal" to a man, there is NO man out there that I am equal to. In my book, there is no equality between men and women. I am a treasure to prized. I am a lady. Gentlemen should open doors for me, rise when I join the table, take my hand as I exit a car, pay when on a date, etc. Fortunately, I have found a gentleman who knows how to cherish a woman and I reward him with my undying love and honor him with my submission.

-kitten

[Hime]

I am a radical feminist and a switch. I think that feminism and BDSM can be a good combination, since being a feminist means being keenly aware of power relationships and how they relate to sexuality. It also means celebrating a woman's right to decide what she wants in a sexual relationship and actively look for it. I consider it a great victory for women that there are so many women and girls here, submissive and dominant, who have thought through what their own sexual needs and desires are and pursued those desires in their relationships, instead of just trying to accommodate the desires of a man.

My opinions about feminists in general are mixed. I think that a lot of feminists are out there doing great work to make our society more accepting of gender differences. I also think that the feminist movement over the years has been overly dominated by upper- and middle- class, straight, white women who have often been dismissive of the concerns of lesbian and bi women, women of color, poor women and trans people (since both MTFs and FTMs have to deal with sexism and misogyny). I can understand why a lot of women are uncomfortable describing themselves as feminists because of these problems, although personally I believe that the movement has the potential to move past its problematic history and grow into a more universal project.

A lot of people here seem to have some misconceptions about what a feminist is. Being a radical or militant feminist does NOT mean wanting to get rid of men or make them slaves to women -- that's being a female separatist, or a male sub with an overactive imagination. ;) A few useful terms:

Liberal feminists are people who believe that men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law, meaning they believe in equal pay laws, reproductive rights, laws against sexual harassment, domestic violence, etc.

Radical feminists believe that patriarchy (the male-dominated hierarchy that largely defines Western culture) is too entrenched to be changed by law alone, and work to change the culture itself, not just the government. A radical feminist might focus on balancing gender representation in the media, organizing anti-sexual assault campaigns on campuses, or encouraging women to accept their bodies as they are.

Womanists are women who believe in some or all of the principles of gender equality, but choose not to identify as feminists because they see the feminist movement as exclusive of gay, trans or non-white women.

Female separatists are feminists who believe that it is destructive for women to have relationships with men, and that all women should be lesbians instead. This was mostly a 1960s/70s movement that hasn't really remained relevant, and it's rare to encounter one these days. As a woman who enjoys dating and sleeping with women, I'm really annoyed by female separatists, because the ones I've encountered online have this obnoxious tendency to co-opt lesbianism for their own purposes without actually being sexually attracted to women themselves. I suspect that a lot of them are really asexual, rather than gay, since the thought that some lesbians actually enjoy sex often seems to bother them.

[damyanti]

I suppose that depends on your (often skewed) definition of what feminist is.

I find those women who say that they are not feminists to be spoiled, rude and ungrateful. And also ignorant, because one of the meanings of the word feminist is to be of feminine character. So if you are not feminine, what are you, butch?

If we dare to judge a religion based on the war mongering of the extremists there are always those who will say "shut up you racist hater", and yet it is completely acceptable to bash all women who identify themselves as feminists based on some caricature or a small group of dellusional radicals.

Women died so that you could have a choice. Yes, YOU! They were tortured and prosecuted in a manner that some of you are terribly casual about. And thats not even counting all the women condmned just for daring to show that they have a brain.

Its a horrible matter of things that only a small percentage of women on this planet enjoy it (relative freedom) and yet we now want to stiffle it there too. More than half of Earths population are women, yet they only make 1% of its rich and the most of its poor. Even in countries that we are talking about (a few professions aside) women with equal qualifications are regularly paid less than their male counterparts.
And we are still laregly judged based solely on how we look and how we dress.

Being a feminist isnt about being the one thing, its about the right to be a woman and that we are valued for it.

To me Helen Gurley Brown is as much of a feminist icon as Susan B. Anthony.

Yes, I agree, that in some western countries certain things have went too far...but its once again a matter of women having to be responsible for everything. It, of course, has nothing to do with men being lazy and spoiled and twisting things by thinking that now that women are "liberated" it means that in adddition to going to work, cooking, cleaning, and looking after the children they also now have the right to change their own tires.

How exactly are feminists responsible that men cant keep up? I must have missed the part in the feminist manifesto where it says that wanting equal pay and the right to expression somehow amounts to men becoming rude and unmotivated.

Yes, its all feminist fault. It would have nothing to do with consumerism, technological development, increase in the population, mobility of the people, the fact that teaching etiquette in schools has been deemed uncool and worthless...

I am a feminist. I expect to be treated equally in all things. And I think that when it comes to "romance" men should be men and women are to be treated as ladies.

But men are rarely men anymore, and paradoxaly thats often down to overindulgent stay at home moms. An example: a lady in question was a high powered corporate manager who quit her job to raise her children, an older boy and a girl. Last year a girl started school. But seeing her take them to school is a real telling sight...her little daughter carries (struggles, really) her own bag, and she is teaching her to mend for herself and to be independent. Mom however carries her sons bag, and openly admits that she is softer on him and that she tends to "cuddle" him more and do things for him that she expects her daughter to do for herself.

Personally, (I am not that old)...I couldnt wait for my mom to go back to work after my brother was born. Its true that her career for a long time took back seat to my dads, but I cant exspress how much I was always proud of her for working. I love my mother, but the thought of her as a stay at home mom fills me with horror. The trick is in balance.
Of course, I have to admit, when it comes to my brother my mom was no better than the lady in the above example.

Sorry ladies, you cant have it both ways. You cant say I am not a feminist, but I want choice and equal pay. You want want want...well, sorry, but without feminits you are nothing but a pair of tits and an ass and nobody cares what you want.

*I appologies for crude language, but I was demonstrating a point.*

[damyanti]

As for how it plays into my bdsm thing...other than I have a right to make this choice for myself...it doesnt.

I submit because I am submissive, but I am not submissive because I am a woman.

[AdrianaAurora]

I already answered this before in another thread, some time ago, to me feminism isnt about belittling men, but empowering women.

My husband cooks and canes my ass. I make bed and vacume and gladly place myself over His knee. We are a modern household, lol.

I am pretty happy with Him and His attitude. And I think He is a pretty good example of how a modern man should be - a delightful blend of New Age sensitivity and Old World manners. When it comes to work He is "an equal opportunity bastard", lol, but in everything else He treats women as equal and as ladies. He does have a machismo attitude when it comes to women who make the first move, He absolutely cant stand it, (but I am not exactly going to complain about that, lol).

I am a feminist and proud of it.

But I notice that both those who call themselves Feminists and those who claim that they arent one, want the same thing only under different label!

Another interesting off shoot to this thread could be - why are women so mean to women?

I work in an old boys club profession, and the stories I could tell you about sexist remarks and put downs I had to and still do tolerate, and things I have seen when travelling abroad, would make your blood boil.

Ultimately, however, it comes down to ones ability to do the job and men get used to it, to me. But women - it doesnt matter how nice, smart and qualified you are - if you are percieved as younger and prettier, watch your back!
All the horror stories I have about working with men are child play compared to those I have of working with single, middle age women (as a superior, equal or an employe). *shudder*

[leo9]

My husband cooks and canes my ass. I make bed and vacume and gladly place myself over His knee. We are a modern household, lol.


Yep, that's how it was for me and my wife. I cooked, kept house and whipped her in chains. She went out to work and ordered men around, came home and knelt for punishment. Balanced roles...

[leah06]

Liberal feminists are people who believe that men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law. . . .

Radical feminists believe that patriarchy (the male-dominated hierarchy that largely defines Western culture) is too entrenched . . .

Womanists are women who . . . choose not to identify as feminists because they see the feminist movement as exclusive of gay, trans or non-white women.

Female separatists are feminists who believe that it is destructive for women to have relationships with men . . .

What do you think of lipstick feminists? Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

Lipstick feminism also referred to as "stiletto feminism" or "slut feminism" [1] is a branch of feminism in which it is not seen as contradictory to both be a feminist and to put on a show to attract men/women. Besides the acceptance of makeup that the title implies, lipstick feminists also do not find stripping, pole dancing, flashing, girl-on-girl exhibitionism, or sometimes even glorification of prostitution to be in conflict with feminism. Lipstick feminism also associates sex with power and the power of sexual allure as power over men.

A more mild degree of lipstick feminism allows proponents to call themselves feminists while still wearing make-up, suggestive clothing such as short skirts, revealing tops, high heels, and other female-specific clothing and accessories usually shunned by more traditional feminists. Also, in milder forms it allows for a feminism that is in favor of equality under the law, equal pay, and other concrete demands for gender equality, but does not take issue with the effect of modern media and culture on gender relations. Many feminists see lipstick feminism as a contradictory philosophy in which women willingly objectify themselves while calling it empowerment.

I find this interesting in the context of feminism and bdsm, because in the cases of both lipstick feminism and female submission, you have women who choose to adopt, at the very least, behaviors that are in apparent conflict with traditional feminist theory. These women assert (or could assert) that because these behaviors are the result of automonous choice and not imposed on them by a patriarchal society, they are compatible with, and even a reflection of, feminist ideals. As the last sentence of the Wikipedia article shows, there are other feminists who still adhere to the concept of false consciousness.

I also find this interesting because of the explicit connection between sexual choices and power relations.

[blythe spirit]

A lot of people here seem to have some misconceptions about what a feminist is. Being a radical or militant feminist does NOT mean wanting to get rid of men


Radical feminists believe that patriarchy (the male-dominated hierarchy that largely defines Western culture) is too entrenched to be changed by law alone, and work to change the culture itself, not just the government. A radical feminist might focus on balancing gender representation in the media, organizing anti-sexual assault campaigns on campuses, or encouraging women to accept their bodies as they are.

Female separatists are feminists who believe that it is destructive for women to have relationships with men, and that all women should be lesbians instead. This was mostly a 1960s/70s movement that hasn't really remained relevant, and it's rare to encounter one these days. As a woman who enjoys dating and sleeping with women, I'm really annoyed by female separatists, because the ones I've encountered online have this obnoxious tendency to co-opt lesbianism for their own purposes without actually being sexually attracted to women themselves. I suspect that a lot of them are really asexual, rather than gay, since the thought that some lesbians actually enjoy sex often seems to bother them.

Granted,feminism became fanatical and ugly in the 1960s; however, Gloria Steinem, who said "We don't just want to destroy capitalism, we want to tear down the whole f____ patriarchy" was considered a "militant feminist" not a "separatist." NOW was considered a "terrorist organization" that wanted to dissolve "traditional" family life completely, referring to it as a "comfortable concentration camp from which women needed to be liberated."

The problem, as I see it, is that all "feminists" good and bad were lumped into one category known as the "Women's Movement."




Being a feminist isnt about being the one thing, its about the right to be a woman and that we are valued for it.

Women, imho, always had value. Even when they were nothing more then chattel, albeit a very singular type of property. They had value because they alone could "give birth."

I would venture to say that more men "died" in history to protect that which was his, namely womenfolk, than those women who faught to be liberated from gentlemenfolk, who rose when a lady entered the room, who opened doors and relieved her from heavy labor and protected her reputation.

Even the lowliest of woman escaped first from the Titanic. I just wonder, if the boys being raised today would not push their way past these women to extricate themselves from the sinking ship...because women are now just as equal as they?

And when it's all taken into account, all we really have is the right to complain that we still don't have the equality that our foremothers intended.

[damyanti]

Women, imho, always had value. Even when they were nothing more then chattel, albeit a very singular type of property. They had value because they alone could "give birth."

I would venture to say that more men "died" in history to protect that which was his, namely womenfolk, than those women who faught to be liberated from gentlemenfolk, who rose when a lady entered the room, who opened doors and relieved her from heavy labor and protected her reputation.

Even the lowliest of woman escaped first from the Titanic. I just wonder, if the boys being raised today would not push their way past these women to extricate themselves from the sinking ship...because women are now just as equal as they.


Sorry, blythespirit, but having value and being valued are two very different things.

If it gives you pleasure to blame other women knock yourself out, but you have a very romanticized and very inaccurate view of history.

And your last paragraph...how does being good at my job and wanting freedom to make my own decisions, ends up equal asking to be pushed around and treated rudely? Boys are being raised to disrespect women because women are equal now? So they don't respect other men, their friends, fathers? And please look around...women are still far from being equal.



(This isnt directed at you! I just didn't feel like double posting)

It has been my experience that women who proclaim that they are not feminists are the ones who just want to stay home, go shopping, do nothing and have a "sponsor" who pays for it all and are too conceited to lift a finger. They want to be treated like a lady. In Europe we call them WAGs, and if thats a lady,...I prefer to buy my own handbags. To me a man is a person, not a wallet.

[denuseri]

Skips in, stops all of the sudden and looks up at the pretty post. Puts my hands to my chin and cringes down a little bit with an audible gasp...........

"It has been my experience that women who proclaim that they are not feminists are the ones who just want to stay home, go shopping, do nothing and have a "sponsor" who pays for it all and are too conceited to lift a finger. They want to be treated like a lady. In Europe we call them WAGs, and if thats a lady,...I prefer to buy my own handbags. To me a man is a person, not a wallet. " by damyanti

OMG damy: WOW by this quote of standards above I must be like a new type of feminist the UBER-FEME-A-Excellente!!!! ,(best James earl Jones meets Ricardo Montaban and Grace Jones voice I can squeak out) You know the type that whorships her "man-sponser" like he is a little demigod. ( nodding a lot)

I mean like gosh! I allmost am like allways doing "something" as opposed to nothing, I am like never home, shopping is like somthing I never have time to do, like well other than buying food to feed everyone when I cook, (even on E-bay) I am like allways off working instead of being home...like I have two jobs even,, (does the "I couldve had a V8 face)..I am sure of it now!`

I am Femanist Suprema Maimila!!,

oh~ wait I am also his professional house maid, cook, and all around slut too, sooooo that actually cums to like (counts on my fingers) FIVE!!..five jobs I am holding down.

Thanks for pointing it out and forgive this silly girl's fuzzy math.



..........Skips out whistleing Dixie

[blythe spirit]

If it gives you pleasure to blame other women knock yourself out, but you have a very romanticized and very inaccurate view of history.

Frankly, damyanti, I have not romanticized history, I was part of it. No, I wasn't on the Titantic. lol. And I'm not blaming other women. Perhaps you should reread my posts (all of them).

I do, however, think the "militants" and the "terrorists" have a great deal to do with the demise of chivalry. It was to a point where men would actually ask, "Is it okay for me to hold the door for you?" Poor guys had absolutely no clue what was and was not proper anymore. And I don't think their fear was brought about by other men out there.

Long before you, there were women out there holding pregtigious positions that they worked hard to get. It was their "choice" to do so. As to your last statement, I think you confirmed what some of us said, about being looked down upon by "radicals" whose belief is that any woman, who "chooses" to stay at home is nothing.

Thank you, denuseri, for pointing out the many (more than five) responsibilities that homemakers hold without renumeration. I, for one, chose career over marriage and had to do battle on a daily basis "breaking" into a man's world. It wasn't an easy task, but I learned early on that I caught more flies with honey. *winks* Later on in life, I did marry. Strangely, a man with very old-fashioned ethics.

As far as the way boys are being brought up, I would hope that women being equal doesn't mean that boys should treat them rudely; however, I have yet to see equality in the work place or in the home, but I have observed boys treating little girls disrespectfullly.

[damyanti]

LOL denuseri, that posts wasnt about you and you know it. Just as you know that WAGs do exist and their mantra is "I am a girls girl and not a feminist".

And, darling, you may not wish to call yourself one, but you are a feminist. In fact, you are my feminist girl icon. (and I considered you that before this thread, so :bigkiss:

[denuseri]

Giggles I just figured i better point out the irony in stereotyping catagorically.

"I find those women who say that they are not feminists to be spoiled, rude and ungrateful. And also ignorant, because one of the meanings of the word feminist is to be of feminine character. So if you are not feminine, what are you, butch? " by damyanti

Just to use myself as an example:

Again I must say I most certianly am not a feminist.

I have never been spolied other than to have good gender based role models for parents and a Master that puts my life above his own.

Admitably I am sometimes rude, but I am working on it.

No one that I have had contact with to my knowledge has said I am ungrateful, heck I even thank the dominants in my life for spanking my ass among other things winks (IE: OWWWW! two! Slut thanks Master! may she have another? )

I am far to much of a girlie girl (despite being raised rather tomboyishly) with a out of control hello kitty fettish to be even remotely accosiated with being "butch".

Ignorance might be bliss, but the little korean boy that heads the chess team in the honors room at school does fear my approch for a reason, and it's not becuase I have nice legs or a naughty nature that knows when he is looking at my mouth he is thinking about anything but the game (licks my lips). It's actually probabley got more to do with something about my wicked end game or the way I out think him.

Historically speaking:

The conseptualization of what it means to be "feminine" ergo to be "female" existed for tens of thousands of years perhaps even longer (even before "language" fully developed) which is a far better example of precedance than any recent mis-conseptualization by the so called feminists....... who have managed to twist and transvaluate values (to quote niestche).

So I find the your statement saying it must be this or that (feminist or butch) indicative of sophistry as it is a catagorically spurious corelation with little relevance to any logic in your argument other than to attempt to invoke an emotional responce instead of apealing to reason.

Just for paradoxical purposes:

If I am a feminist then you are a kajira!

And, darling, you may not wish to call yourself one, but you are a kajira. In fact, you are my kajira girl icon in waiting. (and I considered you that before this thread. (winks)

[damyanti]

If I am a feminist then you are a kajira!

And, darling, you may not wish to call yourself one, but you are a kajira. In fact, you are my kajira girl icon in waiting. (and I considered you that before this thread. (winks)



:) ( I actually quite like that, thanks)


Fine, let me ask you this - what does it mean to be a feminist? Who is a feminist?


Because to me being a feminist means that I am respected as a human being, that my opinions are not rejected just because I am a woman, or my "place" predetermined just by my gender. Because yes, if you say that you are not a feminist, then what are you? To me it means that you have a mold, into which women should fit.

But to me thats just it, you cant put all women down into a mold as if they all want the same thing. Just as all women don't want to be touched the same way, not all women want their doors held. Just because most women choose so called female professions, why does that mean that the one who wants to be a truck driver has to go through hell and all the put downs, and even antagonism from other women because she is not "a lady"?

To me feminism is about freedom and choice, many choices - a freedom to be a kajira, a stay at home mum, a carpenter, not to marry, and a right to do with your body as you want - so when someone says "I am not a feminist," what I hear is, "Only my choice is right, and all the others who don't fall into that mold, should be forcefully brought into the flock or eliminated". Because thats what it comes down to, so I have an equal distaste for those "militant" feminists and those who puff their chest and say that they aren't - because to me its a sign of ultimate disrespect and ungratefulness to all those women who came before them (throughout history) and fought to break the mold.



And off topic, you cant, in every, argument accuse someone of sophism. I wont even go into the argument about what Sophism really was or is. But in the derogatory sense that you are so fond of using, the prime example of it is, accusing another of sophistry as a persuasion technique.

[blythe spirit]

Historically speaking:

The conseptualization of what it means to be "feminine" ergo to be "female" existed for tens of thousands of years perhaps even longer (even before "language" fully developed) which is a far better example of precedance than any recent mis-conseptualization by the so called feminists....... who have managed to twist and transvaluate values (to quote niestche).

Thank you, again. This is basically what I referred to in my original post.

And, damyanti, thank you for "coming around." Your last paragraph (in bold) differs dramatically from your last paragraph in post #24. I believe that all women want their voice, but to be heard we sometimes have to whisper.

[Arria]

Feminism means to me that a woman takes the right to choose for herself which life, job, family setup etc. makes her happy.
If this means being a submissive to a man, so be it.

It should not mean "doing everything like a man" or "doing everything better than a man" or "hating men" or "not having sex with men" or any of such bullshit.

That sort of self-proclaimed "feminists" were the only ones who gave me a really hard time when I discovered my sexual preferrence. They just piss me off!

[denuseri]

Fine, let me ask you this - what does it mean to be a feminist? Who is a feminist?

Feminist is according to the Oxford dictionary "one who practices feminism.

Feminism being according to the same reference scource: "A noun refering to a movement or theory (yes a theory!!) supporting womens rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

A therory that I quite simply dont subscribe too. Especially the more emasculating practices that such thinking supports. To say "woman is equal to man" is to say there is no need for a differential catagory of being, humankind has tewo distinct sexes with different capabilities geared toawrds thier respective roles in life. 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.

I am in no way shape or form "equal" to anyone else least of all the other half of the species who's bio-ethical makeup is geared to a different role.

Of course the code of virture ethics i subscribe to hasnt been twisted by the feminist movement into a transvaluated imaginary playing field where the "reality" of what is and is not`~ is derived not from the observational logic; but from emotive conjecture.



Because to me being a feminist means that I am respected as a human being, that my opinions are not rejected just because I am a woman, or my "place" predetermined just by my gender. Because yes, if you say that you are not a feminist, then what are you? To me it means that you have a mold, into which women should fit.

Honestly If you do study history the female of the species has been held in great reguard by many. Respect has allways been a two way street between man and woman.
Ergo a woman's opinions are not to be catagorically dismissed just becuase of her sex. A womans "place" has never been soley determined just becuase of her sex, (even though biology has predetermined her primary role) too many other variables have allways applied to every situation. I can come up with just as many examples to support this statement as you can to refute it so dont even bother we will end up filling the entire forum lol.

Biology , a supreme being or beings, the force, what have you, and millions of years of evolution have allready predetermined the vast majority of your "place" within nature, (just as it has with everything else living) that you rail against it as a "feminist" doesnt mean your genitic makeup or chemical structure is going to change to accomadate your beliefs.

As they say in anatomy and phisiology: "structure equals function"

My structure is that of a woman not that of a man. By oxfords deffinition I am not in the slightest a feminist becuase to me a feminist is being untruthful and illogical to both herself and others in her persistant belief in an illogical theory.

But to me thats just it, you cant put all women down into a mold as if they all want the same thing. Just as all women don't want to be touched the same way, not all women want their doors held. Just because most women choose so called female professions, why does that mean that the one who wants to be a truck driver has to go through hell and all the put downs, and even antagonism from other women because she is not "a lady"?

The feminists (ironically) themselves are the bigest "mold" makers and "putters" by assuming all wemon should fit into thier twisted catagorical quest for unacheivable utopian equality.

Individual bias and discrimination doesnt require a non-sensical "theroy" or movement to combat it, it only needs moral fortitude and common sence.

To me feminism is about freedom and choice, many choices - a freedom to be a kajira, a stay at home mum, a carpenter, not to marry, and a right to do with your body as you want - so when someone says "I am not a feminist," what I hear is, "Only my choice is right, and all the others who don't fall into that mold, should be forcefully brought into the flock or eliminated". Because thats what it comes down to, so I have an equal distaste for those "militant" feminists and those who puff their chest and say that they aren't - because to me its a sign of ultimate disrespect and ungratefulness to all those women who came before them (throughout history) and fought to break the mold.

You apparently by your own definition are not what I or oxford would call a feminist.

To me feminism is about being forced by societal peer pressure to conform into an un-natural-state of behavior that results in unfufilment on a physical, mental and spiritual level becuase it attempts to emasculate and gender nutralize our society as a whole.
I refuse to conform to it becuase I would have to convince myself that somthing that is a "lie" is instead somhow illogically the "truth".

When someone says "I am not a feminist," what I hear is: Oh good another woman has reialized how the wool was pulled over her eyes, mabey there is some hope yet. To bad the "feminists" are going to brand and hunt us for choosing not to conform to the "role" they have established for the flock and we will perhaps be eliminated for standing up to them. Because thats what it comes down to.

I have an equal distaste for feminists, militant or otherwise, especially those who puff their chest and say that I am somehow wrong or oppressed or am disrespecting my vernable elders memory- because I embrace my nature like so many of the women preceding me so honorably did.

To me "feminism" is a sign of the ultimate disrespect and ungratefulness to all those women who came before us, period.[/

[leah06]

The fact is, women who get to choose not to be feminists in (some parts of) the modern world get that choice because of the feminists who came before them. Without the feminists who preceded us, the choice would not exist. We would all be channeled into one mould without reference to the (clearly obvious, from the posts on this thread) different aspirations, abilities, and situations of different women.

And before you tell me about the three women who made different life choices prior to feminism, don't. My mother was one of them, and God bless her, but I'm talking about the general freedom of decision that most women have in some parts of the world today.

[PropertyOfMasterJoey]

i TOTALLY agree with denusari i can't really add anything to a brilliant post lol

[denuseri]

The real fact is:

Wemon have made choices throughout human history long long long before the advent of the so called "feminist" movement.

We didn't need Feminism to make any desicions for us.

We as women have had a very great impact on culture and society ever since before the proverbial apple was plucked from the metaphoric tree.

The argument that only three women have made choices prior to the feminist movement that came along and would have us make ourselves into something we are not by putting us all into one mold, has no basis in fact.

ALL women made and make choices all of the time, everyday we all live or have lived.
Even the slave, or kajira or submissive has choices (made all the more apparent as a microclasm of power exchange), and being a submissive should in and itself show you that much at least.

We have the unique viewpoint of seeing the whole of the hierarchy of dominion that exists in nature (which we are a part of as much as any other living being).

We have through out our existance beguiled, alured and even rarely forced our way into every avenue of power in every way possible, just fine without "feminism" or it's unnatural dogma.

It is in fact the feminists; with thier not so cleverly hidden agenda of emasculation, that would have us belive we would be channelled into one mold without choice.

~ All the while trying to force feed us propaganda to make us fit into the mold of thier design despite all our differing aspirations, abilities, and situations.'


"There is a difference' laughed Hassan, 'between the pride of a free woman and the pride of the slave girl. The pride of a free woman is the pride of a woman who feels herself to be the equal of a man.
The pride of the slave girl is the pride of the girl who knows that no other woman is the equal of herself."

Tribesmen of Gor, page 333

[damyanti]

See I keep reading here about this bad, emasculating feminist stereotype, and you accuse me of sophistry. I have never met any "militant" feminist or someone spewing stupid biased rehtoric such as emasculation who is taken seriously.

To judge those who say they are feminist, by a narrow "militant" group is like judging all muslims based on terrorists, because they are the true muslims. Both claims are nonsense.

The problem with English language, what is lost in the translation is....having equal rights - to live, make your own choices and be respected as a human being - doesnt mean the sexes are the same.

I have never met "militant" feminist or seen them sitting clostered in groups snickering at me for studying, but I have been subjected on a regular basis to "miss" types mocking me for studying and even giving me unsolicited advice how to get myself a husband or how to get my boyfriend to propose.

In my country women never had to go through the struggle for vote like they did in the US, they had a right to work and equality before the law.

But practice is however different, because those are the "intellectual" rights aplied outside of home, and what happens at home....this is a pretty safe country...but gender based violance is the single biggest problem.

I dont believe in emasculating men, for heaven sake I am attracted to dominants...but I do believe that girls have the same right to education, I dont think men are smarter or better than girls, I refuse to be put to my place because only I know what my place is.

And frankly I am so sick and tired of this threads where its discussed whats real - you are not real submissive unless you give yourself as a slave, no trust questions asked, to a first guy that comes along, or you are not a real woman if you say that you are a feminist. Blah, blah, blah...If everyone just felt good about their choice and stopped needing the validation that it is a right one by making everyone else to subscribe to it, this would be a lot nicer world.

Here, those groups labeled or who call themselves feminist, are those who concern themselves with fighting domenstic violance (unless of course you think thats ok, and falls under gender determened role), fighting for rights of working mothers, for longer stay at home time, for higher child benefits and to protect women against mobbing in the work place. I am not going to appologise for my need to defend them.

Its one thing to choose to be a kajira, to feel that you are one and that that feels right to you, but cant you understand not all women feel that way?

Some women want to be cops, some dont like to wear make up...how is that diminishing men? If a guy finds my ability to form a coherent sentence emasculating...he is not someone I want to be with anyway. Do you know why? Because guys like that are those who slap you around. and not in a nice way. And it is thanks to feminists that I have a right not to be forced into marriage with one such jerk.

Lady who said that she had lived history, and is feeling nostalgic about good old times...well (when it comes to patriarchy) I still live with one foot in it and plenty of women in it with both. Yes it means men will open the door for you, it also means you are only seen as an easily replaceable birthing machine, it means he gets to smack you around and nobody thinks its wrong, it means you are just a piece of meat and if he treats you with kindness and respect its his good will.

It is not PC for working women/mothers to mock those who stay at home and I cant remember ever seeing one doing it, but it is completely ok for stay at home mums to trash those who dont. Why is that ok?

You are sick of feminist "militants", I can relate to that...I am sick of constantly having showed down my throat that unless I claim only my way is right, unless I have a man, unless I give birth, unless I stay at home, unless I wear a skirt...that only women who do that are real women, women of substance and I am a liberal/liberatarian/socialist/intellectual/sophist (or any other term which is today supposed to be derogatory) who has no values.

And such stance and insistance on who is a true lady has caused a madness on opposite end where refusing to dress like a man and having a standing appointment at the hair spa means one is not feminist. So I get to fight two sides of nutty extremists. Thanks.

[damyanti]

[I]The argument that only three women have made choices prior to the feminist movement that came along and would have us make ourselves into something we are not by putting us all into one mold, has no basis in fact.

ALL women made and make choices all of the time, everyday we all live or have lived.


So all women always had the right to a political vote? And those few, who managed to rise above, got there without a struggle, accepted easily as a breeze...and you dont think their life choices constitute feminist struggle?

Laws where women were considered owned and a property (by birth) and had no personal choice, and where ultimatively always someone else had the final say as to their life? My history professors must have made them up?

A woman who is denied the promotion, despite the fact her credentials are indisputably higher than that of her junior male colleague who got promoted instead of her...because he is more suited to the role because he can go to places she cant...like football games, drinking bear, strip clubs and she soon wont be able to put in that many late nights because she is nearing her child bearing time. That to you is right, her place?

A husband has a right to hit and rape his wife? And laws which guarantee him that weren't in place until recently?

I could go on and on and you talk to me about facts.

Yes, in a few places of the world some things went to far and got skewed...but thats because one form extremism only gives birth to another.

[denuseri]

LMAO <<I shall have to pm you about the shopistry thingy., and yes I was on a rant.



To clarify, when I am speaking of feminism i am generally refering to how it has made me feel, as opposed to oxfords or anyone elses deffinition of it.

Damy, your definition in paticualr from an earlier post of what feminism is; was not inclusive by oxfords standards, it was more what came from your heart or what you have been taught to think in school I assume.
And you obviously feel like people have attacked it. Where as I am indeed only attacking the far extremist side of feminism.

I actually agree that violence against wemon and many other social wrongs should be righted, I simply dont subscribe that being a "feminist" is the best way to do it.

As for histories perspective individual teachers have a tendency to focus on what they feel is important, often to the exclusion of the truth so i dont doubt that if you had a feminist teacher that they told you the history of the world was a dark terible place for all females becuase we were so opressed etc.

I fortunately have a really strong gag reflex and dont allways swallow everything that a professor trys to push down my throat is infact gospel.

I prefer to reaserch it from many different angles and follow my heart some when determining the truth of things. Which is how i came to understand how much influence we as women have actually had on society as child bearers and rearers (prime position to teach children including boys how to become men) as well as cotesans, priestessess, queens, empressess, merchants, warriors,etc etc the list goes on.

I do however judge the theory that feminism is based upon (by its oxford deffenition of equality) as being illogical in its supposition as it relates to my own ethical standards becuase it asks me to believe in something i consider to be a lie, equality is a utopian ideal and I dont believe in any way that any two people are truely equal.

Living where I live and being born and raised in a somwhat different culture from that in which i currently reside; I honestly do feel assualted on a daily basis by the pervading dogma of a feminism that attempts to emasculate the males around it.

To say that becuase I disagree with feminism means that I some how support putting the female half of the species into som kind of "mold" or under the jeapordy of certian cruelty at the hands of men is preposterous to say the least.

To say that I think all women should be incapable of thinking other than the way I do belays an ignorance that I can only subcribe to the fact that who ever thinks thats how I feel doesnt really know me at all or they are in fact trying to be hurtful or use sophistry to make a point.

It is statements like those that cuase my little beast to stir and go grrrr and come out with a rant against the hipocracy of those types of statements with my own sometimes equally sanguine statements.


Many cultures have provided near equal or better oppertunities to women throughout history and they didnt need a feminist movement to do it.

The fact that in America one seemed nessesary at the time is ironic, of course the entire united states, just as much of weastern europes culture preceding its emergence from the victorian era was rife with struggle trying to adapt to the rapid industrialization of human society and many men and women (yes we as wemon could have prevented this as we have great influence) made mistakes during that period that cuased certian dogmas to prevail despite thier preposterous lack of logical observation, hence the misconseption that only white anglo saxon males had any fortitude or intelectual capacity, (1800's) which eventually cuased a swing of the cultural pendulem in the other direction (1900's) that we are still riding today of which feminism is a part.


I have prety much said all I can say.

Peace my sisters.

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











I

[orchidsoul]

I've been reading and re-reading this thread trying to figure out how to properly express myself and Seri's comment just helped me... thank you.


[B][I]The real fact is:

Wemon have made choices throughout human history long long long before the advent of the so called "feminist" movement.


That's the thing- there's more than one feminist movement. It's a 'movement' that has been occurring since the 1700's, though around the mid 1800's began being more vocal in numbers, particularly beginning with the right to vote.

And it wasn't until the 1920 elections that we were allowed to vote for a President. Prior to that, as early as the mid 1700's (I think it was that early), there are a few instances granting women the right to vote in local elections. But often there were restrictions- married women technically owned nothing as it was their husbands, therefore were disqualified, leaving unmarried and widowed women allowed. The rules were not the same in each state either.

The feminist movement encompasses many arenas of equality and choice. From the right to vote, to education, to property rights, to birth control, to reproductive rights, to divorce, to domestic violence, to work force, to equal pay and much more. There literally was a time a woman could not go to school, or could not leave a man that was beating her let alone have the right to not be beaten.

So yes, women have been voicing their choices for many many moons... but it's taken years for various choices to be allowed

I've also had many issues with 'feminists' along the way. In college I took a Philosophy of Feminism course and tore apart in discussions half the books we read. I don't remember who, I think Friednan or Dworkin, but one of them went as far to say women should not get a physical by a male physician and condemn any woman who did. To me, this was precisely what 'we' were supposedly fighting for and why go forth and eliminate a gender?

I completely agree with Seri in the comparison of men and women. We have two different biological make-ups and there's no comparison. It's like apples and oranges.

Do I think that if I'm doing the same job as a man I should be paid the same? Absolutely. Do I think just because I'm a woman I have the right to do *any* job a man can? No- because I'm not physically capable of doing some of their jobs. I don't think anyone deserves a job based solely on gender. Don't get me wrong- if I'm strong enough I shouldn't be eliminated (I work in a physical industry and very much hold my own- but yeah, there are times the big boys move certain things because they can and some of us can't and I'm not remotely ashamed), but I don't see myself being capable of being a pipe fitter, or running a jack hammer 10hrs a day. Physical strength is the biggest difference imo, and it's a reality.

With that being said, without all the women who fought (and still fight) for the right to be an equal part of the work force, women would not be holding some of the positions in companies that they do today... and even still there's discrimination and discrepancies in pay.

All in all- for me it's about the right of choices for any individual. I don't believe we should be trying to replace or emasculate men, or be criticized for staying home with our children whether we're the mother or father, or not be allowed to love whomever we want regardless of their gender, or not be allowed to submit to a man or have a man submit to us, or not be allowed to want to be the breadwinner of the family, and so on and so forth.

Part of my choice is that I like the differences of men and women, in fact relish in them. I do happen to lean towards more traditional roles of a man and woman, even as a very independent woman, but that's most likely because it's not my only choice.

Yes, I'm a feminist by the definition that I believe in equal opportunities, autonomy over my body, and the ability to make my own choices as a woman and human being.

[orchidsoul]

in the interim of me taking forever to write my post, Damyanti you posted and talked about many of the same causes of feminism I did. You mention 'in your country women didn't have to fight for voting and had the right to work and equality before the law'- I was curious in what country you live (if you don't mind saying)?

And yes, practice is oh so different.

[SnickerKitten]

I find those women who say that they are not feminists to be spoiled, rude and ungrateful. And also ignorant, because one of the meanings of the word feminist is to be of feminine character. So if you are not feminine, what are you, butch?
**********************
Sorry ladies, you cant have it both ways. You cant say I am not a feminist, but I want choice and equal pay. You want want want...well, sorry, but without feminits you are nothing but a pair of tits and an ass and nobody cares what you want.

*I appologies for crude language, but I was demonstrating a point.*


Let's see... I'm not a feminist. I am spoiled and extremely grateful for it. Rude? Well, on occasion, I've been known to be. Because I don't consider myself a "feminist" does not mean that my character can't be feminine.

I can have it both ways, I don't have to be a feminist and say I want to be equal to men in all ways. I don't believe that pay and choices should have anything to do with whether you are a man or a woman. However, I am a lady and I FAR prefer to be in the company of gentlemen.

Also, at another point you said "It has been my experience that women who proclaim that they are not feminists are the ones who just want to stay home, go shopping, do nothing and have a "sponsor" who pays for it all and are too conceited to lift a finger. They want to be treated like a lady. In Europe we call them WAGs, and if thats a lady,...I prefer to buy my own handbags. To me a man is a person, not a wallet. "

Again, I am not a feminist. I am a stay at home mom, which is a really funny title, IMO. I, like most "stay at home moms" that I know am not home very much. I do go shopping frequently and spend quite a bit of time at it and therefore am frequently able to save loads of money by comparing and waiting for sales and finding the best deals. It's not uncommon for me to spend $100 and come home with a $500 value.

As far as "do nothing" I have to laugh. I spend one week a month on call 24/7 for a disaster relief organization. I am then on call the rest of the month to answer questions, teach classes, mentor other volunteers and to respond to larger disasters. Approximately 3-4 times a year I answer the call to respond to disasters in other parts of the country, as well. Oddly enough, although I am a lady, I have at times driven a forklift for this organization and the men I was working with still treat me like a lady.

My "sponsor" certainly does pay for everything including my handbags, although I do pick them out myself. This arrangement does not appear to trouble him. In fact, he rather likes that he doesn't have to deal with me having a work schedule that keeps me from him. Being a volunteer, if he decides to come home early and wants me with him, as frequently happens, I am there.

As far as seeing Rago as a wallet or a person, I see him as neither. I see him as the center of my universe and I LOVE that he sees me the same way. I am very glad that I have never given in to the idea that I can't have everything I want and I can't have things two ways, because that is exactly what I have and I'm grateful for it.

-kitten

[orchidsoul]

Yeah- I think some very exaggerated stereotypes are being applied in this thread.

Damyanti- I do feel your passion, and agree with many of your beliefs on feminism, but I think to label so many people with such ugly attributes is being highly stereotypical. Remember, not everyone that's Muslim is a terrorist. ;)

Regardless of whether or not we all call ourselves feminists, which to be honest this is the first time in years I've been asked, I think it's evident that every woman in this thread actually stands for much of the same even if there's some differences.

What if my response was:
I am a woman who believes in equal opportunities, autonomy over my body, and the ability to make my own choices as a woman and human being.
If there's a need to label that as a feminist, so be it- but if someone else minds... then they need not be labeled.

The term 'feminist' lends itself to actively pursuing freedoms of women. As far as I'm concerned, I do that daily by presenting myself as a qualified, equal, feminine, and strong woman who loves the fact that men are a different pillar of strength that I absolutely could not live without. But no, I don't 'fight' for liberation and equality as many before me and in front of me do. Perhaps that's why some people don't want to be labeled a feminist? Sometimes vocabulary gets so churned and stereotyped along the way.

Kitten, Seri, or any of the 'non-feminists' in this thread, do not seem like weak, ignorant, rude, butch(which, btw, is one benefit of 'feminism'- a woman can be butch if she wants), conceited, or ungrateful women to me. I'm not in any way saying you're calling them that personally, but you are grouping them in your beliefs of non-feminists. Again, I do understand your passion... but words can be so accusatory.

DowntownAmber- good thread, it's sparked some interesting conversation... but where the heck did you go?! (besides far far away) haha

[leo9]

I forget which author it was who said "I have never been very clear what feminism is, I only know that people call me a feminist when I express sentiments that distinguish me from a prostitute, or a doormat."

[hopperboo]

I do not consider myself a feminist.

Definition of one? Hmm...I'd say a woman who concerns herself with her career rather than her husband and children. A woman who wants to 'run the show' at home. A woman who thinks she is 'equal in all ways' to a man. A woman isn't an exact equal to a man. Men and women are different, and instead of embracing that difference and becoming equal on that 'different' ground they rebel at any idea they can't do ANY job just as well as a man. The fact is men and women do different jobs better than the other. It's a hard fact of life. That is why there aren't any Navy SEAL females. (Durrr).

And just to make myself clear I don't believe women shouldn't have jobs or careers. However, I DO think that the marriage and children come first. If things are going badly at home then perhaps it's time to take a break and focus on the vows one took and the children that were brought into the world.

My views on feminism are negative for the most part. Yes, I think it did bring some rights and respect for women that were long past due, but at what cost? Our world is falling apart and I think a lot of that is to do with the feminist movement. Marriages are breaking up left and right, children are left with babysitters or other day care providers instead of being raised by the parents.

I think men like be chased by an aggressive woman rather than than chasing the woman (romantically). Which is a total bite for us women that WANT to be chased. It makes me sad.

[AdrianaAurora]

Another thread on whats "true". Thank you so much, how did I ever manage to live without being told what I am, is beyond me.

And as I said before, its all about women being mean and bitchy to other women.

I so love it when "soccer mom" types put me to my place.

I so love it when they dont bother to check what a WAG is, but label themselves one. Thanks for the laugh girls.

I especially love when women who dont know what "a lady" is call themslves one.

I so love it when women who label themselves "non feminists" spew feminists rehtoric.

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.

You bring this debate on a gibberish level that women and men are biologically equal because you have no better argument. And its something not even a most militant feminist would dispute. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. What they do claim is equal rights and equality. And some even superiority.

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".

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.

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.

Am I better than all women in all things? No, (though my husband says, yes, lol). But I am better than most women in most things, that includes intelligence and strenght.

And do you know why there arent any Navy SEAL "females", beacuse women are NOT ALLOWED to be Navy SEALs!!! And it has about as much factual logic as does prohibiting gays in the military. If they were, I am sure you couldnt cut it, but there are those who could. Not many, but how many men are Navy SEALs either.


My great great grandmother was a feminist. My great grandmother was a feminist. My grandmother is a feminist. Even my beauty queen mother is a feminist. Every single one of them fought for equal rights, for fair treatment of themsleves and other women. Each of them earned their respect. 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 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. He married me because I was His equal.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go emasculate some women.

[DowntownAmber]

Another thread on whats "true". Thank you so much, how did I ever manage to live without being told what I am, is beyond me.

And as I said before, its all about women being mean and bitchy to other women.

I so love it when "soccer mom" types put me to my place.

I so love it when they dont bother to check what a WAG is, but label themselves one. Thanks for the laugh girls.

I especially love when women who dont know what "a lady" is call themslves one.

I so love it when women who label themselves "non feminists" spew feminists rehtoric.

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.

You bring this debate on a gibberish level that women and men are biologically equal because you have no better argument. And its something not even a most militant feminist would dispute. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. What they do claim is equal rights and equality. And some even superiority.

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".

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.

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.

Am I better than all women in all things? No, (though my husband says, yes, lol). But I am better than most women in most things, that includes intelligence and strenght.

And do you know why there arent any Navy SEAL "females", beacuse women are NOT ALLOWED to be Navy SEALs!!! And it has about as much factual logic as does prohibiting gays in the military. If they were, I am sure you couldnt cut it, but there are those who could. Not many, but how many men are Navy SEALs either.


My great great grandmother was a feminist. My great grandmother was a feminist. My grandmother is a feminist. Even my beauty queen mother is a feminist. Every single one of them fought for equal rights, for fair treatment of themsleves and other women. Each of them earned their respect. 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 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. He married me because I was His equal.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go emasculate some women.

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

[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)

[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

[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."

[damyanti]

Peace my sisters.




My sisters?

But OMG, thats like women, you know, coming together and doing something together and might like result in a common values and common "non-sensical "theroy" or movement...you know like a movement of (a group) of women...otherwise know as "feminist" movement.

And I though we are supposed to stand alone because all it takes to change something is "moral fortitude and common sense".

This was irony, but you can call it sophistry, sis. ;)

[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.

[AdrianaAurora]

I forget which author it was who said "I have never been very clear what feminism is, I only know that people call me a feminist when I express sentiments that distinguish me from a prostitute, or a doormat."

God, I want to kiss you leo, lol. If I had a penny for every time that happened...

[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. :rolleyes:

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.

[icey]

Except that women are still in the majority at the bottom end of the world of work, doing the shit jobs that they can't get men to do for the price, and in a minority in management that gets smaller the higher you go. .
strangely enough in my family its the women with one exception that are at the higher end of the management heirachy.

Ah, these young folks....
i wish! lol but what does age have to do with anything?


in those days hard core feminists didn't have sex with men anyhow what days were these? i had many many ''hard core'' feminist friends some of the denim dungaree doc martins 'type' and others way more butch and some very feminine, from all walks of life they were lesbian bi and straight.
were all involved in different lifestyles i knew them from when i used to go to a very well known feminist bar but none of them i ever met other than the lesbians obviously had no problem sleeping with men! and weirdly none of them were man haters lol nor did they hate or criticise non feminists!

whether it was politically OK for lesbians to do BDSM, or whether they were "internalising patriarchy" and should be re-educated to understand that violence and dominance were male vices shunned by properly empowered women. lol id have loved to hear those conversations in the gay bars i used to frequent wow with all the old leather boys and girls (yup i said girls!) around and feminists! they wouldnt have lasted two minutes! although i am talking about the 80's and 90's what with me being so young and all ;)


There were a few holdouts still fighting the Lesbian SM Wars when I got involved in the '90s, so I know people weren't making this stuff up.
in the early 90's practically everyone in the gay bars i ever met were D/s orientated! or had some form of interest in bdsm.
i guess coming from different eras...(im guessing you're older than me by your young folks comment?...im 38 btw) and different locations can make a huge difference to our experiences and world views.

[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.

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

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

[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, :rolleyes:, 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'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?

[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, :rolleyes:, 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]

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.

[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 :aol_doggy;blo:erotic3: is possible without you, its not nearly as fun. I do need someone to ;pank:crop::hotwhip: . And some of you are actually nice to look at :hubbahubb


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, :whip2: . Men and women are entitled to the same (job) opportunities and may the best candidate win.

[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

[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.

[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, :rolleyes:.

[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.

[hopperboo]

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.
No, not at all. My mom was a full time teacher while I was growing up. I see nothing wrong at all with a woman who wants to keep working (part or full time) after a children. I do however find women who chose their careers over their husband and children to be lacking. And in case I am not making myself clear on this point that goes for men that choose their careers over their wives and children too.



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.
*Shrugs.*




If you like, we can apply your double standard
What double standard is that?



I am not in support of women like you being in the payed workforce.
Women like me?

Oh, you mean women who are or want to be stay at home wives/moms?




and then one day you just don't show up at work.
I don't give a fuck if you want to rip at my opinions. But don't you dare slander my integrity. I would never 'just not show up at work.'

[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

[AdrianaAurora]

I don't give a fuck if you want to rip at my opinions. But don't you dare slander my integrity. I would never 'just not show up at work.'

:rolleyes:

:ra

[hopperboo]

I had to comment on these posts...I went back and re-read.


On the other hand, if it means beating men down to nothingness and obliterating them entirely, then I am not a feminist.

+1!!!

When I think of the term "feminist" I automatically think of those women who are 'extreme' about it, ball-busters and what not...which probably is not good.

p.s. Your whole post was very nice.




I will say, that in the work force I absolutely believe that women should be paid the same as men and have all the opportunities available to men. Course, if you really want to get into it deep, I also believe that all children in a two parent home should have a parent at home with them. I don't believe it should always be the mother, but I do believe that it should be a parent. Don't get all up in my face about how the majority of families can't afford that
+1.

With the majority of 'middle class' families depending on the cost of child care in the area and how many children they have it would be a really smart move for the spouse that makes less money to stay home. Both from the monetary view and from the view of having a child raise by their parents.

[AdrianaAurora]

Without Feminism, BDSM amounts to DD.

[Pearlgem]

Sorry if I'm repeating anything here.

When I was younger, I internalized what I thought was the feminist belief that signs of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' were inherently sexist, and in trying to 'defeminize' myself I think now I was deeply misguided and it made me a bit lonely. Now I'm older actually I still think most of what we consider masculine or feminine is a social construct, but since I too am a social being living in the same milieu, I reach for my lipstick...

I think I got feminism wrong when I was youthfully intense, but now I'm older I think of it more as it applies to society and not just me. Equal pay, right to choose, right to be educated, vote - of course. You don't need to be a feminist to agree with these. I would call that 'humanist' if it didn't mean something else - 'personist', perhaps. If life treats women unfairly just because they are women, it can do the same to men. Men can be just as much victims of the so-called patriarchal society as women are. Chauvinistic attitudes, male and female, have been taught to us by society's greed, selfishness and ignorance. 'One is not born a woman, [or man].one becomes one.' de Beauvoir. Much of this we can challenge, but there is a great deal yet simply to acknowledge and understand before we can hope to do anything about it.

Feminism, to me, means challenging any orthodoxy that disadvantages women as human beings. This is not the same as putting men down.

But I have to admit, I don't quite get women who claim there is no relevance in feminism or who revile it. One only has to look around the world and see the powerless, uneducated, grinding struggle that is the lot of too many girls/women. Perhaps it's perfectly legitimate and even a perverse sign of success that what women fought for on your behalf, you now feel free to dismiss, so much is it taken for granted. But I would remind you, women are struggling over the world, the system is unfairly loaded against them. I am thankful for the advantages I enjoy as a Western woman, but let's not suppose that feminism can have no greater relevance than to insist men do dishes and women break balls.

I have realised I can be feminine, feminist and submissive. It's all do to with realising your worth and supporting the worth of others.

[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.

[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.

[Pearlgem]

I wonder what others think. Is it living the feminist ideal to make a living from your body or your looks and have that celebrated over achievements of the mind? I read of many women claiming that their materialistic, no-brainer lifestyle is practically a positive feminist choice when what they aspire to do is bag themselves a rich footballer-type husband. I wonder how far down the road you can stretch feminism this way? Is it feminist to be a model, to be involved in pornography, prostitution? As long as it it perceived to be a choice, is it acceptable, is it feminist? Does it matter?
Personally I think the pressure many women now face to have their vaginas surgically reconstructed is definitely a feminist issue!

[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,

:wave:
Adriana

[Thrasher]

What do you think of lipstick feminists? Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

Lipstick feminism also referred to as "stiletto feminism" or "slut feminism" [1] is a branch of feminism in which it is not seen as contradictory to both be a feminist and to put on a show to attract men/women. Besides the acceptance of makeup that the title implies, lipstick feminists also do not find stripping, pole dancing, flashing, girl-on-girl exhibitionism, or sometimes even glorification of prostitution to be in conflict with feminism. Lipstick feminism also associates sex with power and the power of sexual allure as power over men.

A more mild degree of lipstick feminism allows proponents to call themselves feminists while still wearing make-up, suggestive clothing such as short skirts, revealing tops, high heels, and other female-specific clothing and accessories usually shunned by more traditional feminists. Also, in milder forms it allows for a feminism that is in favor of equality under the law, equal pay, and other concrete demands for gender equality, but does not take issue with the effect of modern media and culture on gender relations. Many feminists see lipstick feminism as a contradictory philosophy in which women willingly objectify themselves while calling it empowerment.

I find this interesting in the context of feminism and bdsm, because in the cases of both lipstick feminism and female submission, you have women who choose to adopt, at the very least, behaviors that are in apparent conflict with traditional feminist theory. These women assert (or could assert) that because these behaviors are the result of automonous choice and not imposed on them by a patriarchal society, they are compatible with, and even a reflection of, feminist ideals. As the last sentence of the Wikipedia article shows, there are other feminists who still adhere to the concept of false consciousness.

I also find this interesting because of the explicit connection between sexual choices and power relations.
Now THIS is interesting.
I'd like to state that I am in favour of fairness. No group should have ALL the power, or recourse to remedies that force compliance based on inherent traits or characteristics which indicate membership in a gender based on membership in that gender, real or not.

What I find so fascinating about the appeal to false consciousness (other than the fact that it can be read several ways) is that it implies a move towards hegemony, or a preponderance at least, of power on one side.
It looks like Rachel is saying that it isn't fair to arm yourself with the traditional equalizers (ie, lipstick) and call yourself a feminist at the same time.
Whether in the street, at the bar, in the boardroom, or online, representation of female signs do translate into power at the personal level. Too much power to give up willingly. (there's a whole aside about why we stay in Afghanistan here, but I'm skipping it)
So, if objectification IS power at the level where one becomes visible, what is the false consciousness? Is it the "raised awareness" of the "equality" of women, the willingness to use the traditional street level equalizers, or is it the willingness to endure submission or objectification in a gambit to trap and neutralize others, men or women, who respond positively or negatively to the "provocative" female? I mean is this kind of use of power "false" in that it betrays the hopes and wishes of women who came before fighting endless anhilating battles for equality? Any thoughts?

[his_girl_l]

i just wanted to draw attention to a question in my earlier post that i am really intererested in hearing the answer to. Sorry if it's slightly off topic.

Does consensual bdsm as we would recognise it exist in countries that haven't been affected by the feminist/ equal rights movements?

i have no idea and i am really interested to know

[damyanti]

This post was written by an Indian women (though I think she lives in US) and I am posting it here...as a pinch of reality and sanity.

As far as hard-core feminists go, I probably am not a contender to be one. I agreed to my father-in-law's condition that I stay at home in order to marry his son. That is, I agreed not to work outside of home. I took my husband's last name. I stayed at home after my first daughter was born. Because I wanted to. I like to cook and "keep house". And, *gasp* I wear a bra!! Okay, the last one was my feeble attempt at humor.

But the fact is, if you look at my actions and decisions in the last decade and a half, I don't come across as a feminist. Yes, I made one choice that I regret - gave in to an unreasonable demand that I won't work outside of home. Apart from that, I don't regret any other decisions I made. Yet I believe that I AM a feminist.

You see, I believe feminism is not about working outside of home, or about keeping your name. It isn't even about not letting men open doors for you or giving up a seat for you in the bus. I think feminism is about choice. Being able to choose. As simple as that.

So I can choose to stay at home to look after my kids while my husband goes out to earn, because I believe that is the best thing for my family. Or I can choose to work and to send my kids to a daycare, if I believe that is what will benefit me and my family. Or I can stay home because I HAVE to - maybe the finances don't permit me to send the kids to the daycare or due to some medical condition my kid has due to which I am not comfortable sending her to daycare. As long as the decision is mine. As long as it is not imposed upon me. As long as I don't stay home because "that is what daughters in law of this family do". Sometimes these decisions cannot, and should not, be taken in isolation. Both partners have to make a joint decision. But as long as one partner's wish is not being imposed on the other, it should be fine.


Yet, I have seen so many males proudly proclaiming that they are very "open minded and forward thinking" because they insist their wife work outside of home. Or women admitting proudly they don't do anything around the house because, well because they are "educated" and "not like those women who stay home". I have a second cousin who refused to marry into a family because she did not want to do any house chores and they couldn't afford a full-time maid. I have seen people proudly say "Oh, we will let our daughter-in-law work outside the house if she wants to". I agree that it is pretty mature of them to do so, keeping in mind that there are countless others who stifle their daughters in law for the sake of their false pride. But is it really being "open minded"? That you "allow" your daughter in law to work? Isn't assuming that you can allow, or disallow an adult, quite contrary to being open minded and forward thinking??

And then, it gets tricky in my mind. You see, I also know and accept that the sexes are not biologically equal. Does that make me anti-feminism? That I accept my gender's limitations? I am not saying my gender should be discriminated against on this basis. So just because women are the (physically) weaker sex, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed in mines or on battlefields or aboard spaceships. Equality of sexes, to me, means both sexes should be given an equal opportunity to try things. So, yes, a woman should be given a chance to opt for Mining as her major in engineering college. AND a man should be give an opportunity to be a stay-at-home dad if he wants to. Equality means both sexes should have same legal, financial and political rights. You get paid according to the effort you put in. You get a job if you can prove you are capable of doing it.

And no one, NO ONE, has the right to judge you on the basis of the choices you made.


http://my2centstoo.blogspot.com/2008/10/where-do-i-fit.html

[damyanti]

Does consensual bdsm as we would recognise it exist in countries that haven't been affected by the feminist/ equal rights movements?

i have no idea and i am really interested to know

I by no means claim to be an expert, but I did have more than a passing brush with Islam.

The basis of marital relations is that they are to be lived "in a good way" (bi'l ma`ruf), as Allah tells us in the Qur'an. Each spouse strives to give the other their rights--including the fulfillment of their sexual needs--but within this paradigm of "in a good way."

Islam prohibits sex with a female when she is menstruating and anal sex. Any other sex between a married couple should be fine so long as they agree to it.

The wife does not have to obey unreasonable sexual requests such as bondage or the use of sex toys. If she decides to agree to such matters--in a way that is not physically, emotionally, or relationally harmful nor demeaning or unbecoming of Allah's honoring of humans--then this is purely her own decision, and the husband does not have the right to "demand" such matters.

I did try to investigate Islam and BDSM on-line in more detail, but sadly there is little to nothing available.

[thir]

I would venture to say that more men "died" in history to protect that which was his, namely womenfolk, than those women who faught to be liberated from gentlemenfolk, who rose when a lady entered the room, who opened doors and relieved her from heavy labor and protected her reputation.

Even the lowliest of woman escaped first from the Titanic. I just wonder, if the boys being raised today would not push their way past these women to extricate themselves from the sinking ship...because women are now just as equal as they?
.

Actually, the poor people on 3. class were locked in, women and children as well as men. Whether they were eventually let out I do not know, there were not enough lifeboats, and certainly the 1. class passenger women and children were let in first. Point: class differences were every bit as important as gender.

As for how wars are fought so that men can protect their property including women, it is quite widely held that wars are about money and power. The rest is just window dressing.

[thir]

[COLOR="Magenta"]
To me feminism is about freedom and choice, many choices - a freedom to be a kajira, a stay at home mum, a carpenter, not to marry, and a right to do with your body as you want



You said it. And thought it is not a good idea to speak for others, I will venture the guess that that is what a vast majority of women - and men - wants.

[thir]

Giggles I just figured i better point out the irony in stereotyping catagorically.

"

Historically speaking:

The conseptualization of what it means to be "feminine" ergo to be "female" existed for tens of thousands of years perhaps even longer (even before "language" fully developed) which is a far better example of precedance than any recent mis-conseptualization by the so called feminists....... who have managed to twist and transvaluate values (to quote niestche).


[/I][/B]

The fact is that noone knows very much about how the early humans lived, except that it was probably a good life with quite easy access to all kinds of food.

[thir]

[QUOTE=denuseri;725516]

Biology , a supreme being or beings, the force, what have you, and millions of years of evolution have allready predetermined the vast majority of your "place" within nature, (just as it has with everything else living) that you rail against it as a "feminist" doesnt mean your genitic makeup or chemical structure is going to change to accomadate your beliefs.

As they say in anatomy and phisiology: "structure equals function"


I refuse to conform to it becuase I would have to convince myself that somthing that is a "lie" is instead somhow illogically the "truth".[/I]

This is what is so confusing to me. Anyone has a right to their opinions and ideas and what to call themselves, but you how can you call it facts? We are talking about early humans (or so I read it) and how they lived, and noone knows too much about that. There simply isn't anything to point to, much less prove, that idea of man as protector and provider, and women as, excuse me, eternal parasites on his work, for so I must see it.

All animals have males and females, all females give birth or lay eggs or whatever, but none are provided for by any male. In some species, birds, both sexes provide for the young and take turns warning the eggs, but to the best of my knowledge that is it.

I respect your opinion, but I do not see that you have any facts to back up your opinion as fact, nor any cause to be so angry about people who question the factual basis of your opinions.

We all have our ideas, but noone has the eternal truth.

[thir]

The problem with English language, what is lost in the translation is....having equal rights - to live, make your own choices and be respected as a human being - doesnt mean the sexes are the same. ]

Quite right.


[In my country women never had to go through the struggle for vote like they did in the US, they had a right to work and equality before the law.]

May ask which one?

[ I dont think men are smarter or better than girls, I refuse to be put to my place because only I know what my place is.

And frankly I am so sick and tired of this threads where its discussed whats real -


Its one thing to choose to be a kajira, to feel that you are one and that that feels right to you, but cant you understand not all women feel that way? ]

My thoughts too - why this insistence on the one true way?

[And such stance and insistance on who is a true lady has caused a madness on opposite end where refusing to dress like a man and having a standing appointment at the hair spa means one is not feminist. So I get to fight two sides of nutty extremists. Thanks.

LOL - no, you are just in a rather bit group of people who do not appreciate Anyone telling them what to think.

[leo9]

There simply isn't anything to point to, much less prove, that idea of man as protector and provider, and women as, excuse me, eternal parasites on his work, for so I must see it.


For those who try to refer everything back to animal models, it's worth pointing out that in almost every species I can think of, "protection" is what females do for their young. Folklore everywhere says that the most dangerous creature to threaten is a mother, whether it's a sheep or a lion. Males don't come into it.

Males that "protect" a mob of females (it doesn't happen in species that form couples) usually spend most of their effort "protecting" them against mating with other males. When it comes to predators, the group stands together.

"Man the protector", like "Man the provider" (and its counterpart, "Woman the brainless breeder"), is part of the Tarzan theory of human evolution, which was demolished decades ago in serious science but still thrives in pop textbooks.

[damyanti]

LOL - no, you are just in a rather bit group of people who do not appreciate Anyone telling them what to think.


:d True...I don't believe that any one doctrine holds all the answers...I like to read both sides, all sides...and form my own opinion, based on my conscience and what feels right....I don't think anyone else is better qualified or has the right to do that for me, nor do I possess arrogance to think I am qualified to judge anyone else for their choice.

Two things bothered me about this thread:

1: It is factually incorrect to claim that (most) Feminists subscribe to some militant, male hating philosophy....or that only women like that are Feminists...I provided evidence after evidence that that is not true, I doubt it mattered...those who blind themselves, will never see....it is fascinating though how they can completely ignore women like Beverly LaHaye (personally I find her a bit nuts, but more power to her) leading a “feminist organization” or Feminists for Life....how they fit into that stereotype is beyond me.

2: Ungratefulness and Ignorance

Feminism is just a modern name for struggle of women, (for each of us) to be able to make unrestricted choices for ourselves, that has been going on throughout history . ...to be judged by our individual abilities and desires, not by what someone deemed are confined standards of our sex...from Mary Magdalene, Joan of Arc, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Catherine the Great, Florence Nightingale, Marie Curie, Greta Garbo to Elfriede Jelinek, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Ségolène Royal, Rania, Queen of Jordan.... to my niece.

If you remove the name...would the meaning and the facts of the movement change? They enjoy liberties, but have no (or only a vague) idea how it came about.


Susan B. Anthony


Her name is synonymous with Feminist movement.

What you should say to outsiders is that a Christian has neither more nor less rights in our Association than an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself shall not stand upon it.

I always distrust people who know so much about what God wants them to do to their fellows.

Much as I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression, I cannot believe ... that such a law would have the desired effect. It seems to me to be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil, and destroy it.

She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion.


Elizabeth Cady Stanton

While Stanton is best known for her long contribution to the woman suffrage struggle, she was also active and effective in winning property rights for married women, equal guardianship of children, and liberalized divorce laws so that women could leave marriages that were often abusive of the wife, the children, and the economic health of the family.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton died in New York on October 26, 1902, with nearly 20 years to go before the United States granted women the right to vote.


Lucretia Mott

She considered slavery an evil to be opposed. She refused to use cotton cloth, cane sugar, and other slavery-produced goods. With her skills in ministry she began to make public speeches for abolition. From her home in Philadelphia, she began to travel, usually accompanied by her husband who supported her activism. They often sheltered runaway slaves in their home.

Elected as the first president of the American Equal Rights Convention after the end of the Civil War, Lucretia Mott strove a few years later to reconcile the two factions that split over the priorities between woman suffrage and black male suffrage.


Jane Addams

Addams helped organize the Women's Peace Party and the International Congress of Women in an effort to avert the first World War.
In 1920 she was elected first president of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, the successor organization to the Women's Peace Party. She continued in the presidency until her death.
Addams was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931 for her work.


Pearl S. Buck

She was a prolific, Pulitzer Prize-winning author. In 1938, she became the first American woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "for her rich and truly epic descriptions of peasant life in China and for her biographical masterpieces."

Buck was an extremely passionate activist for human rights. In 1949, outraged that existing adoption services considered Asian and mixed-race children unadoptable, Pearl established Welcome House, Inc., the first international, interracial adoption agency.


Dorothy Day

She was an American journalist turned anarchist, social activist and ultimately a devout Catholic. She became known for her social justice campaigns in defense of the poor, forsaken, hungry and homeless. Day, with Peter Maurin, founded the Catholic Worker movement in 1933, espousing nonviolence, and hospitality for the impoverished and downtrodden.


Matilda Joslyn Gage

She was a suffragist, a Native American activist, an abolitionist, a freethinker, and a prolific author, who was "born with a hatred of oppression".

She faced prison for her actions under the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 which criminalized assistance to escaped slaves. Even though she was beset by both financial and physical (cardiac) problems throughout her life, her work for women's rights was extensive, practical, and often brilliantly executed.

Gage ensured that every woman in her area (Fayetteville, New York) had the opportunity to vote by writing letters making them aware of their rights, and sitting at the polls making sure nobody was turned away.
In 1871, Gage was part of a group of 10 women who attempted to vote. Reportedly, she stood by and argued with the polling officials on behalf of each individual woman. In 1873 she defended Susan B. Anthony when Anthony was placed on trial for having voted in that election, making compelling legal and moral arguments.


Fannie Lou Hamer

Nobody's free until everybody's free.

She was African American, the youngest of 20 children and the granddaughter of slaves.

Her plain-spoken manner and fervent belief in the Biblical righteousness of her cause gained her a reputation as an electrifying speaker and constant champion of civil rights.

On August 23, 1962, Rev. James Bevel, an organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and an associate of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave a sermon in Ruleville, Mississippi and followed it with an appeal to those assembled to register to vote. Black people who registered to vote in the South faced serious hardships at that time due to institutionalized racism, including harassment, the loss of their jobs, physical beatings, and lynchings; nonetheless, Hamer was the first volunteer. She later said, "I guess if I'd had any sense, I'd have been scared - but what was the point of being scared? The only thing they [white people] could do was kill me, and it seemed they'd been trying to do that a little at a time since I could remember."

On August 31, she traveled on a rented bus with other attendees of Rev. Bevel's sermon to Indianola, Mississippi to register. In what would become a signature trait of Hamer's activist career, she began singing Christian hymns, such as "Go Tell It on the Mountain" and "This Little Light of Mine," to the group in order to bolster their resolve. The hymns also reflected Hamer's belief that the civil rights struggle was a deeply spiritual one. By the next day, she had been harassed by police, fired from her job, lost her dog, and received a death threat from the Ku Klux Klan.

Hamer's courage and leadership in Indianola came to the attention of SNCC organizer Bob Moses, who dispatched Charles McLaurin from the organization with instructions to find "the lady who sings the hymns". McLaurin found and recruited Hamer, and though she remained based in Mississippi, she began traveling around the South doing activist work for the organization.

On June 9, 1963, Hamer was on her way back from Charleston, South Carolina with other activists from a literacy workshop. Stopping in Winona, Mississippi, the group was arrested on a false charge and jailed by white policemen. Once in jail, Hamer and her colleagues were beaten savagely by the police, almost to the point of death.

Released on June 12, she needed more than a month to recover. Though the incident had profound physical and psychological effects, Hamer returned to Mississippi to organize voter registration drives, including the "Freedom Ballot Campaign", a mock election, in 1963, and the "Freedom Summer" initiative in 1964. She was known to the volunteers of Freedom Summer - most of whom were young, white, and from northern states - as a motherly figure who believed that the civil rights effort should be multi-racial in nature.


Dr. Charlotte Denman Lozier

The prevailing "wisdom" of her day decreed that females were weak, incompetent, incapable of making valuable contributions to the common good. But Charlotte Denman Lozier never believed it. When she was very young, her family left their hometown of Milburn, N.J., for the then frontier area of Winona, Minn. After losing her mother in her early teens, she supported her younger siblings by teaching. At age 20 she returned East not for a softer life, but to earn a degree at the New York City Medical College for Women, an institution deemed outrageous not only because the students were female, but because they were taught about hygiene and patient self-help.

In her short life she campaigned for women's right and for the right to live of the unborn.

Lozier's passions came together in her defense of Hester Vaughan, an immigrant servant impregnated and then abandoned by her Philadelphia-area employer. The child died soon after birth. While no legal charges were brought against the baby's father, Vaughan was accused on shaky ground of infanticide and sentenced to death. Feminists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton rallied to her aid. Lozier gave Vaughan free medical care and presented exonerating medical and psychological evidence at a large public meeting organized on Vaughan's behalf. Eventually Vaughan was pardoned and returned to her home in England.


Graciela Olivarez

She was a lawyer who advocated for civil rights, rights of the poor and the physically disadvantaged.

In 1970, Olivarez became the first woman and the first Latina to graduate from the Notre Dame Law School. She was offered a scholarship to the school while she was serving as director of the Arizona branch of the federal Office of Economic Opportunity, despite the fact that she lacked a high school diploma. The Notre Dame Hispanic Law Students Association presents an award in her name annually.


Alice Paul

In 1912, Alice Paul joined the National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA) and was appointed Chairman of their Congressional Committee in Washington, DC. After months of fundraising and raising awareness for the cause, membership numbers went up and, in 1913, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns formed the Congressional Union for Women Suffrage. Their focus was lobbying for a constitutional amendment to secure the right to vote for women. Such an amendment had originally been sought by suffragists Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1878. However, by the early 20th century, attempts to secure a federal amendment had ceased. The focus of the suffrage movement had turned to securing the vote on a state-by-state basis.

When their lobbying efforts proved fruitless, Paul and her colleagues formed the National Woman's Party (NWP) in 1916 and began introducing some of the methods used by the suffrage movement in Britain. Tactics included demonstrations, parades, mass meetings, picketing, suffrage watch, fires, and hunger strikes. These actions were accompanied by press coverage and the publication of the weekly Suffragist.

In the election of 1916, Paul and the NWP campaigned against the continuing refusal of President Woodrow Wilson and other incumbent Democrats to support the Suffrage Amendment actively.

In January 1917, the NWP staged the first political protest to picket the White House. The picketers, known as "Silent Sentinels," held banners demanding the right to vote. This was an example of a non-violent civil disobedience campaign.

In July 1917, picketers were arrested on charges of "obstructing traffic." Many, including Paul, were convicted, incarcerated and tortured at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia (later the Lorton Correctional Complex) and the District of Columbia Jail.

In protest of the conditions in Occoquan, Paul commenced a hunger strike. This led to her being moved to the prison’s psychiatric ward and force-fed raw eggs through a plastic tube. Other women joined the strike which, combined with the continuing demonstrations and attendant press coverage, kept the pressure on the Wilson administration. In January, 1918, the president announced that women's suffrage was urgently needed as a "war measure." Wilson strongly urged Congress to pass the legislation. In 1920, after coming down to one vote in the state of Tennessee, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution secured the vote for women.



And these are just Americans, and only a handful of them. Most of them are dead, each of them was a lady in the truest sense of that word,,...I bet... - when they see today's women who are preparing to vote, who take the value that their opinion matters for granted, women who work and choose their own spouses, women who have been through a divorce...women who take for granted the right to say “no” to anyone...claiming that they are not feminists and scoffing their noses and devaluing their struggle...- I think they are turning in their graves.

[leo9]

The real fact is:

Wemon have made choices throughout human history long long long before the advent of the so called "feminist" movement.

Anyone can make a choice. A prisoner can make the choice to be free, but is still in prison.

Women have always been able to make choices to be free, independent, educated etc., but those choices meant nothing in societies which did not allow women to do those things. Feminism is the belief that women who make such choices should be allowed to act on them. It still leaves the others free to make the choices that society used to dictate for them.

We didn't need Feminism to make any desicions for us.

No, women needed feminists (who were, in case we forget, also women, not aliens from space imposing alien ideas) to change society so that they could carry out those decisions.

Feminists didn't make the decision for you who to vote for: they made it possible for you to vote, so your decision would actually mean something.

If your decision is not to vote because real women don't need to, you also have that choice, but a lot of people do want to. Would you deny them that choice to validate yours?


We have through out our existance beguiled, alured and even rarely forced our way into every avenue of power in every way possible, just fine without "feminism" or it's unnatural dogma.

No, not in any way possible: as your very clear description states, in the sidelong and undercover ways possible to people who are denied real control of their lives. All of which ways are still available to anyone (man or woman) who wants to use them, but thanks to several hundred years of feminism you can also do it in the ways free adults do.

It is in fact the feminists; with thier not so cleverly hidden agenda of emasculation, that would have us belive we would be channelled into one mold without choice.
This is the last resort of a failed argument: Never mind what you say or do, I can see what you really want, and I don't need to present any evidence, I just say so.

There are feminists who hate men. There are also anti-feminists who hate men. It has nothing to do with the core principle.

Any man who feels emasculated because a woman earns as much as he does has a serious self-image problem.

[leo9]

When I think of the term "feminist" I automatically think of those women who are 'extreme' about it, ball-busters and what not...which probably is not good.

And when you think "Muslim", do you automatically think of crazy suicide bombers?

With the majority of 'middle class' families depending on the cost of child care in the area and how many children they have it would be a really smart move for the spouse that makes less money to stay home. Both from the monetary view and from the view of having a child raise by their parents.

Which is why, in my previous marriage, I stayed home and raised our kid. (And supervised the household slaves :) )

But a hundred years ago I wouldn't have had that choice, because even the most basic job I could get would have been better paid, simply by being "men's work", than one she could have got, with all her abilities. Sexism does oppress men as well as women.

[hopperboo]

I won't tell you what I think because it has nothing to do with this topic and it goes off into touching on religion leo.


btw, just a separate comment from another one of your quotes, the feminist movement did a lot of damage, as well as good. Saying women can "vote" now is one of the best things it has done, but it certainly only a tiny piece of what feminist movement gave us.