BDSM And Feminism: Intertwined? How So?

[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.