BDSM And Feminism: Intertwined? How So?

[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.*

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?