BDSM And Feminism: Intertwined? How So?

[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.