RE: Misogyny

RE: Misogyny (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

LadyAngelika -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 11:00:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas Iwill, you are absolutely right. I have an intense bias against you. It's not an intellectual bias, it is a more visceral, gut-level, "oh for crissakes get off your knees and be a man" kind of bias that I do try to check, but its there just the same. For what it's worth, I have the same visceral reaction to men that I meet every day who aren't officially submissives, but who exhibit similar behavior. I think that just about any man like me, if he were being honest, would confess the same. Hey Leonidas – Your opinion is yours and I have no issues with that. I’m not even going to try and change your mind about it. I do however want to point a few things out to you. Just like not all submissive women are the same (which I’m sure you can attest to), neither are all submissive men. There are the ones that are completely submissive on all levels and have no backbone. They may be just fine for some other woman but they aren’t for me. I’d tell you that most of the male subs I’ve been involved with have been perceived as very masculine and very strong both physically and mentally by those that never saw them under my spell. There are so many different types and that is the beauty of it all. The reaction you have of male subs is sometimes the reaction I have towards male Doms. Not all Doms of course but there are a select few who, much like the man you described in your initial response, can only get laid by prying on the weak. And that to me is a sign of weakness. - LA

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 11:54:20 AM)
quote: I’d tell you that most of the male subs I’ve been involved with have been perceived as very masculine and very strong both physically and mentally by those that never saw them under my spell. You might be surprised to find that I agree. I'd be an idiot if I thought that I could pick out any man from a crowd that ever knelt to a woman. Similarly, I probably served in very close quarters with some gay men in the military and never knew it. I know that. At the same time, some of the men that I meet day to day and wish they would get off their knees would be absolutely dumbfounded if I said to them that they should just ask for a collar, if that's what they want. quote: The reaction you have of male subs is sometimes the reaction I have towards male Doms. Not all Doms of course but there are a select few who, much like the man you described in your initial response, can only get laid by prying on the weak. And that to me is a sign of weakness. Could be weakness, could just be deep seeded resentment, even hatred. Not to be confused with dominance. Thus the subject of this thread. No real argument here either, I think. Take care of yourself Leonidas

dixiedumpling -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 1:09:02 PM)
In my circle of friends I have known several men who worked outside the home, but also did some job that traditionally is considered "women's work", such as all the cooking of meals. I'll tell you what. The rest of us female type persons were intensely jealous. We didn't look down on those men, we envied their wives. Personalities are different. Some men are take charge and always have to be in control and first. Worked with a man who RAN to be first in line for everything. Do you think the rest of the work force didn't hoot with laughter everytime it happened? When I worked for the government, I had a job that was considered a "man's" job. When the office was up for review, I would be the only female there. The men's attitude was this: You can make me work with women, but you can't make me treat them as equals. If I dared to comment, they would turn their backs. Anything I said was ignored. It was hostile, but there was nothing to be done about it. I wanted to earn their respect, not have someone higher up make them behave. Then when we got back to the office, someone would make a big point of opening the door so I could enter first. The whole situation ground me down to dust. Was that misogyny?

iwillserveu -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 1:14:25 PM)
I know you try to keep your loathing in check. (That did not come out right, but you know what I mean, right?) That is why I generally give you a wide berth, but "suck up", please? All I ask is you don't insult me too often.[:)] (Generally Tyrone is OK, but them blacks...[:)]) Ask Lady Beckett if she considers me a "suck up". Hell, I've openly disagreed with her on these boards. Any of your subs do that? As for providing for them as evidence? Huh? Are you sucking up to your subs/slaves. In your example the only difference is who is kneeling. Man comes in with money, gives it to woman to pay bills. Big suck up that guy is. Since you got insult every sub male, I feel justified asking if your domination is not an attempt to compensate for another inadequacy. Oh does this help you viscerally see me as a man? If not we can talk about football.[:)] (Be warned I'm New England Patriot fan and know only one statisic counts.) Yeah I doubt you see me a lot in the Ask a Master thread, although I'm following around Lady Beckett and might post a quip or two there on occaision. I also know, for what is worth, that you did not start a thread to question my sanity.[:)] (It just sort of happened.[:)])

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 1:29:51 PM)
quote: Was that misogyny? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you were just in the unfortunate position if invading a space that was occupied by men who considered it a male space. That kind of situation is often more territorial than sexist, much less misogynistic. Men love the company of women, but sometimes like the freedom of not having them around. The off-color comment in a male only environment becomes sexual harassment when there is even one woman present. Women too have spaces where they don't have to guard what they say for fear that a man would hear. Unfortunately for a woman in the workforce, the "male only" spaces, traditionally, have been workplaces. Take care of yourself Leonidas

LadyBeckett -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 1:37:45 PM)
I'm not going to quote your post, Leo, because I don't like doing that, (the techie part of it), but it's your last one I'm responding to here. You are so right!!! This is the thing here. Language. That's it. Language. Why in the world would someone accept something personally, that doesn't apply to them??? But they do all the time. So if two males are having a conversation, and a woman is standing, ohhhhh ten feet away, not a part of the conversation at all, and happens to overhear them, why in the world would she get offended by what they were saying if it had nothing whatsoever to do with her? Go away, little girl. That is not your business. If it offends you, go be busy somewhere else. However, in mixed gender settings, we should ever be considerate of that fact, in our language.

WayHome -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 1:41:54 PM)
I'm new to this board and totally hooked!! What fascinating creatures reside here! All sorts of types intercting and fighting and in the process revealing so much about themselves. Leonidas. I applaude your strength in admitting your prejudice. More people should do that more often, and then work to overcome them. On the other hand, I don't have a positive view of your attempt to justify the supperiority of your particular perversion by using Natural Law. Racist's use the same arguments with about the same validity. Firstly, we are humans. We are not free of the influence of instinct, but those instincts manifest in the context of cognitive environment. Our hormonal makeup and sexual roles have not been biologically pre-determined for thousands of years. I would suggest a book to you. "Demonic Males" by Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson. It will support much of what you say and describe the exact sexual dynamic of dominant males vs outside males in chimpanzees. Then it will introduce Bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) who are genetically and physically nearly indistinguishable from chimps, yet have a completely different, and equally viable, sexual dynamic. In this dynamic, the females are in charge and sex replaces violence as the currency of dominance. Are humans more closely related to chimps or bonobos? I guess that might depend on which human you are talking about ;-) In all seriousness, you should read the whole book. It might help you come to grips with your visceral bigotries.

LadyBeckett -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 1:53:25 PM)
ahem That is Creature with a capital "C" and my "features" get equal billing. [;)]

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 2:13:41 PM)
Well, I don't think you have to look around much to figure out which species we are more like. Yes, I know that there are matriarchial cultures in the San Blas islands, and some parts of india and polynesia. Hardly a major influence on the history of mankind, though, don't you think? There are many species where female dominance is the norm. There are many species where the typical female is bigger, stronger, and naturally more agressive than the typical male. We don't happen to be one of them. You seem educated, WayHome, maybe not familliar with the ways of academia, though. Writers of studies and academic books need funding. Funding requires a grant proposal. Grant proposals are read by folks who, well, if you don't have any understanding of what subjects they would see as just fine, and what subjects that they would see as infammatory or off limits, you really should go and spend a season at Berkeley, or any major Uni you'd care to. I'm guessing. Just guessing now, and I could be wrong, that a proposal to write a book that set out to prove that male dominance in humans is a fallacy is going to sail right through. One that set out to prove it wasn't would, well, meet with some scepticism. What do you think? Publish or die is the academic mantra. Publish what we would find politically acceptable is never said, but well.... Tell you what. How about if I keep my point of view, and you hang on to yours. You have been sold, or arrived at yourself, a point of view that you find truthful. I could point out some really obvious evidence that would contradict you, bonobos notwithstanding, but what the hell. You seem happy to think like you do. A man that I consider pretty smart once said about the basis of right and wrong that the business of a species is its own survival. We have been both blessed, and cursed, with an intellect that is a powerful force for reason, but that is also so powerful that it is susceptable to very abstract arguments about right and wrong that justify social experiments which, while they may seem wise today, may not turn out so well for us. Our duty is very difficult to fathom sometimes. It requires that we consider, and can accurately predict, all possible consequences and outcomes of our actions. I tend to put my faith more in the forces that shaped us as a species over millions of years, rather than the political fashion of the last century. But that's just my biggoted point of view. Take care of yourself Leonidas

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 5:09:53 PM)
quote: In this dynamic, the females are in charge and sex replaces violence as the currency of dominance. You know, this bonobo idea is growing on me. If we were more like bonobos, some of the in-charge women could have gone down to Panama to fuck Noreiga into submission. Sure would have saved me some grief. I could have been up here doing (what is it that a male bonobo does again?). Hmmmm.... Take care of yourself Leonidas

WayHome -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 6:00:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas You seem educated, WayHome, maybe not familliar with the ways of academia, though....Publish what we would find politically acceptable is never said, but well.... That's pretty weak. you're saying that books can't be trusted because of bias in publishing? That's what a critical mind is for. I didn't ask you to "buy" a point of view or political ideal, I asked you to (gasp) educate yourself about the ones you already hold. Some facts you missed in your reply: Female bonobos are neither larger, nor stronger than males. They have the same level of sexual dimorphism as chimpanzees and in the same direction. It is neither size, nor force that puts them in charge. Aside from the "insignificant" matriachal cultures you mentioned, I would add early Celtic culture which was matriarchal and which has been VERY influential. You might also be surprized to discover that traditional African-American culture is matriarchal as well. Within primate cultures such as chimpanzees and gorillas (the best analogs for what you espouse) the females hold a great deal of power. They most often express this power in relation to protection of their offspring, but females can gang up on and expell males from the troupe for a variety of reasons. They generally exhibit cooperative behaviors unheard of in the males. If you resort to Natural Law as a moral justification for your lifestyle, then you should have a better understanding of natural law.

Sinergy -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 6:08:27 PM)
quote: Maybe for a minute or two. True, a quick Aikido disarm, an Aremi, perhaps a quick scissors lock, and I suppose I could use the flogger as I saw fit :) Enjoy your evening Sinergy

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/6/2004 6:25:34 PM)
I'm going to guess, though I don't know for sure, that I've probably read a great deal more about it than you have, given that it has been an interest of mine for a long time. As for critical thinking, well, if that book told you that humans are anything like bonobos, or that what bonobos do has anything to do with what humans do, and you bought that, well, your argument about critial thinking might start getting a little thin. Early Celts Matriarchial? I'll have to take a look at that assertion. First I've heard of it, and I do like ancient cultures. I seem to have read that the ancient Celts were so male dominant, and violent as a culture that men literally fought over meat around their fires (they liked ham, by the way). Hmmm.... decidedly not bonobo like. African Americans matriachrial? Only since the great society. The women, you see, started getting the checks. In the 1950s, the illigitimacy rate in that culture was comparable to whites. It's 70% today. No dads does indeed make for a matriarchial society. What was that you were saying about educating yourself about your views? I really didn't comment about the size or strength differential of bonobos. You will notice that I separated dominance and the other attributes (size, strength, agressiveness). I know they aren't the same thing. Thanks for the lesson about bonobos though. I'm not sure how you divined that what I said to Iwill had to do with natural law. I said that I had a bias against men who kowtow to women. Many men do, but not too many will say so, to avoid conversations like this. I really don't much like these discussions about natural law in 'mixed company" if you will. They just wrankle people, and generate a lot of heat, and not much light. You are entitled to your views, if you are happy with them. If it makes you happy to think that mine are held out of ignorance, that's alright too. Take care of yourself Leonidas

January -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 11:14:49 AM)
Thank you, baileythorne! Your post is a wonderful example of why there should be a online collarme book. Why should that gem of experience and insight sink into cyberspace oblivion? January P.S. My perspective on dungeons must be odd. I don't know of any dungeons here in cowboy country, so I associate public play with travel to a major city. While I'm whining, I might as well bring up the fact that we also don't get CBS without cable (unless it's a foggy Colorado day). So that's why there's no CSI for me, Thanatosian. [:(]

Thanatosian -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 11:41:08 AM)
quote: So that's why there's no CSI for me, Thanatosian. The first 3 seasons are out on dvd - dont know if blockbuster or somewhere would have them to rent or not

Sundew02 -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 12:44:14 PM)
Leonidas, I believe that life is a rainbow of experiences, people, events etc. That I am a Domme and believe women are meant to lead. That does not exclude, for me, the existence of males who can rule, just not me or others with my mind bend. There is no pure black or white, there are always shades of grey. Do you truly believe that every woman born was meant to be under some males rule? Without exception? I have had Dom friends, who I respected, and they respected me, as an equal. Admittedly I know very little about Gorean, but from what I gather a "free woman" is one that cannot have the same rights as the only other "free" group, the male dominants. So how is she free? As I understand it, you do have in your society male slaves. Do you consider the male slaves in your own group weak, effeminate, emasculated? Just a curious mind. Sundew

LadyBeckett -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 1:00:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sundew02 Leonidas, I believe that life is a rainbow of experiences, people, events etc. That I am a Domme and believe women are meant to lead. That does not exclude, for me, the existence of males who can rule, just not me or others with my mind bend. There is no pure black or white, there are always shades of grey. Do you truly believe that every woman born was meant to be under some males rule? Without exception? I have had Dom friends, who I respected, and they respected me, as an equal. Admittedly I know very little about Gorean, but from what I gather a "free woman" is one that cannot have the same rights as the only other "free" group, the male dominants. So how is she free? As I understand it, you do have in your society male slaves. Do you consider the male slaves in your own group weak, effeminate, emasculated? Just a curious mind. Sundew Yanno Sundew, I do also, and they have been my friends for years. I'm not altogether sure I want to approach this discussion with any one of them until I have a better understand of this. I find this quite fascinating.

Leonidas -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 2:02:14 PM)
quote: Do you truly believe that every woman born was meant to be under some males rule? No. I do, however, believe that the vast majority of women in the history of the world have been. It's a characteristic of our species. It's just the way we are "built" if you will. It is what is natural for us. With hyenas, it is the opposite. Every male hyena born is born into a species that is dominated by its females. Does this mean that every woman ever born belonged under the dominance and protection of men? No, it doesn't. For some women, it is simply in their nature not to want the protection of men, or to submit to their domination. They want to assert their own dominance in the world. They aspire to something else. There have been women like this throughout history, and they are to be admired, but they are the rare exception. For a women like this, her dominance has no more to do with men than the dominance of a man has to do with women. A man, or a woman, should be true to their own nature. To submit to a man if your spirit is truly dominant is cowardice, but so is not submitting to a man if that is what, in your heart of hearts, you long to do, just because you think (or have been convinced) that you shouldn't. Similarly, for a man to become a neutered lap-dog because to assert who he actually is is more difficult, and discouraged by our society is cowardice. At least, that is how we think about it. It is about being true to what you are, instead of living with a rational sounding explaination of why you shouldn't be that leaves you devoid of spirit. Gorean free women are free women because they are not slaves. They do not consider themselves the equal of a man, when that is obviously not the case. They are women who do wish the protection of dominant men, and acknowledge that they are sovereign. This doesn't appeal to every woman, but to some women it does. It is their nature to be free, but in a culture where male dominance is encouraged, and even celebrated. We don't keep many male slaves around. It is rare. As I said elsewhere, we think that we are up to our armpits in male slaves already. No need to create more. I'd rather not say a lot more about us, if you would not mind. Again, it is the kind of discussion that just grows heated, and doesn't do much to enlighten anyone. Take care of yourself Leonidas.

Sundew02 -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 2:03:05 PM)
LadyBeckett, I have always be a "pot stirrer". Smile. Hopefully life here will get back to somewhere close to normal. If it ever does I would enjoy meeting you in person. The quote on your profile, are you a redhead as well? There has to be a D/s event that would attract both of us. Unfortunately here is not an active D/s area. STL does still somewhat flurish. I enjoy these boards more every day. My hide is pretty tough, and the knowledge I gain from the discussions (tongue firmly in cheek) is worth dancing so close to the fire. Sundew

Sundew02 -> RE: Misogyny (8/7/2004 2:23:13 PM)
Tamping down on my curiosity. Another time, another place. Thank you for the insight. We frequently respond to the same posts,to be honest we do at times agree. I naturally wanted to know a bit more about your philosophy. As to flame wars, that was not my intent. But I do enjoy dancing too close to the fire. This old hide is pretty thick, and can take the heat. Nice to know more, I do enjoy most of your posts. Sundew

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875