BDSM And Feminism: Intertwined? How So?

[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.

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

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

[AdrianaAurora]

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

I am a working mother.

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

But lets look at the reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MMI]

I'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?