BDSM And Feminism: Intertwined? How So?

[MMI]

I am a working mother.

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

But lets look at the reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's ok then. Feminist propaganda.

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

[AdrianaAurora]

Yes, I'm British. Is that relevant?

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

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

[AdrianaAurora]

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


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

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

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

That's ok then.

You do have other uses.

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

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

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


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

[MMI]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MMI]

This paper might interest everyone participating in this discussion:

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

[leah06]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's just mean.

[hopperboo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AdrianaAurora]

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

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

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

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

[leo9]

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

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

[hopperboo]

You seem to think that you are better than women who choose to find something meaningful in working outside of the house, after marriage and kids.

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

How dare you presume that there is not a single woman out there capable of being a SEAL. She should be entitled to make that choice for herself. And given an opportunity to prove herself.

*Shrugs.*

If you like, we can apply your double standard

What double standard is that?

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

Women like me?

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

and then one day you just don't show up at work.

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

[Torq]

OK,,ALLLLL

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

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

STAY ON TOPIC

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

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

Be Well

T

[AdrianaAurora]

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

[hopperboo]

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

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

+1!!!

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

p.s. Your whole post was very nice.

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

+1.

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

[AdrianaAurora]

Without Feminism, BDSM amounts to DD.

[Pearlgem]

Sorry if I'm repeating anything here.

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

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

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

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

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

[Kuskovian]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

[Pearlgem]

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

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

[MMI]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then we're both unhappy.

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

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

That's just mean.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pearlgem]

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

[thepast]

Just to clarify YET AGAIN...

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


delia

[Torq]

OK, Folks,

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

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

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

FINAL WARNING TO ALLL

T

[his_girl_l]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

layla

[AdrianaAurora]

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

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

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

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

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

[his_girl_l]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AdrianaAurora]

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

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

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


Adriana

[Thrasher]

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

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

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

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

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

Now THIS is interesting.
I'd like to state that I am in favour of fairness. No group should have ALL the power, or recourse to remedies that force compliance based on inherent traits or characteristics which indicate membership in a gender based on membership in that gender, real or not.

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

[his_girl_l]

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

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

i have no idea and i am really interested to know

[damyanti]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

[damyanti]

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

i have no idea and i am really interested to know

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

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

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

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

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

[thir]

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

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

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

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