RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (Full Version)

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



Message

cloudboy -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 9:34:58 AM)


Those quotes are quite amusing, but I don't consider them defining of feminism at all. I side with Tammjo here, snippets do not a view of feminism make ---- quotes without context lack consequential, meaningful, significance.



thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 9:40:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos


quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

Otherwise I could cite numerous "Christian" statements that are equally as nasty about women, about minorities, about politics and about other religions and claim all Christians are this way.



I know I will never forget Jerry Falwell stating how the attack on the world trade center was essentially God's punishment for it being ungodly.


But would you say that his comment was the Christian comment? Would you use it to represent all Christians?

I wouldn't.

I happen to identify as a Christian and a feminist and I am offended when extreme or single statements from anyone in those broad groups are used to represent the entire group.

I know exactly what this rhetorial device is when you use a few statements to set up your opponents (not that you were doing this, amayos). I just find it very hypocritical to use said devices then complain when others do the same thing.



meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 9:52:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Those quotes are quite amusing, but I don't consider them defining of feminism at all. I side with Tammjo here, snippets do not a view of feminism make ---- quotes without context lack consequential, meaningful, significance.


The quotes were largely for amusement value. The nature of posting on a public forum is that one tends to use sound bites because very few people will read a lengthy thesis and probably none would respond.

Being single and with no immediate intention of changing that situation in any serious way, of course my position in the sex wars (which are as old as Adam and Eve and far from always being in the male favour despite the feminist version of history) like most people's is largely selfish. 



amayos -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 9:55:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

But would you say that his comment was the Christian comment? Would you use it to represent all Christians?

I wouldn't.

I happen to identify as a Christian and a feminist and I am offended when extreme or single statements from anyone in those broad groups are used to represent the entire group.


I would say many in the christian camp do think likewise, and in many cases even more radically. I would point out Mr. Falwell's statement follows a recurring motif in christian America against secularist aims.




Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 10:02:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
You have got to be kidding here, right? You act as if feminism has lead to the degradation of our environment, moral values, economic output, and overall public safety. "Tragic effects," LOL, that's a good one. You have taken hyperbole to a whole new level.


funny, i thought you were kidding LOL

of course i have a very different background and will go with Jim Kalb

The practical aspects of gender are no less universal than the symbolic. The ties among a man, a woman, and their children have always been fundamental, and dependent for reliable functioning on a generally settled division of responsibility among the parties and therefore between the sexes. More specifically, all societies have been patriarchal, with men mainly responsible for public concerns and women for domestic matters and the care of small children. Always and everywhere men, while exercising no general right of domination, have predominated in positions of formal authority.
The universality of these differences shows them to be rooted in biology and other permanent conditions of human life. It is hard to think of anything very different that would work, given the need for stable and functional families and therefore generally settled role distinctions able to stand up to the stresses and changes of life. A system as complex and subtle as human life cannot be reconfigured in fundamental ways merely at will. Nonetheless, opposition to gender as a principle of social order—to what is called “sexism”—is what unifies the things called “feminism.” Since the opposition is absolute and categorical, feminism is in no way reformist. It treats a fundamental and evidently necessary principle of all human societies, sex-role differentiation, as an oppressive arrangement that must be abolished at whatever cost.
The aim of feminism, therefore, is to create a new kind of human being in a new form of society in which the ties among men, women and children that have always existed are to be dissolved and new ones constituted in accordance with abstract ideological demands. In place of family ties based on what seems natural and customary, and supported by upbringing and social expectation, feminism would permit only ties based on contract and idiosyncratic sentiment, with government stepping in when those prove too shaky for serious reliance. There is no reason to suppose the substitution can be made to work, let alone work well, and every reason to expect the contrary. Feminism does not care about reason, however, or even about experience of the effects of weakened family life. It is in fact ideological and radical to the core. There can be no commonsense feminism, because doing what comes naturally gets a feminist nowhere.
The objections to anarchist and communist theory apply with yet more force to feminism, because what the latter seeks to eliminate touches us far more deeply than private property or the state.

Robert Sheaffer:
One can try to argue that the U.S. family died of natural causes at precisely the same time feminists began shooting at it, but after examining the depth and ferocity of the feminist attack against womens' roles as wives and mothers, such an argument fails to convince.

So are you wiling to go on record and state that the children of single parent families do not have more difficulties as a general rule in society today than those of 2 parent families?






Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 10:12:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
I happen to identify as a Christian and a feminist and I am offended when extreme or single statements from anyone in those broad groups are used to represent the entire group. 


Yeh imagine how my mother and most other women were offended, (and still are), since the feminists purported to represent women by attacking men as whole and changing our social structure according to their agenda regardless of what the majority of women thought about it.  No one cared about their feelings.

At least no one here is restructuring society.



IndigoDadesi -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 10:19:00 AM)

to get my two cents in about the OP (before I read through the pages of other posts): I think saying that every woman has a Dominatrix in her is a bit like saying every woman is two drinks away from a threesome...its wishful thinking.



Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 10:33:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Those quotes are quite amusing, but I don't consider them defining of feminism at all. I side with Tammjo here, snippets do not a view of feminism make ---- quotes without context lack consequential, meaningful, significance.


frankly i would find it even more amusing if you can even conceptualize a context that those statements could remotely be taken any other way but negative! 

They stand by themselves, entirely self-supporting, fully consequential, meaningful and significant.

That and coming from such a large number of feminists can no longer be considered the exception to the rule but the rule in itself.



meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 10:46:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

 "Poor women always had equal rights because in the part of society they inhabited there wasn't enough wealth to carry passengers."



Poverty or wealth is a question of perception. As the apocryphal Inuit said, 'I only knew I was poor because the Americans told me I was poor.'  Such women weren't dirt poor but relatively poor in material terms to the top 5% of society where marriage was a business deal.

It was the industrial revolution that shaped the gender roles for the last two hundred years, before that changing partners and taking on responsibility for the children of a new partner was the norm. Divorce in European society before the industrial revolution was commonplace, well most people weren't actually married. In fact Continental visitors to England used to comment frequently on how an English man expected his spouse to do business and how they were allowed to wander miles from home, alone, to carry out their business. In fact the majority of women had more freedom in pre-industrial England and western Europe in general than they had after the onset of the industrialisation and the height of laissez faire capitalism. There is reason to argue that their freedoms were on par with mens. We are still in that same period but with current capitalism being unsustainable in its present form with the rise of China and India and their material expectations, no doubt economics will change the gender relationship once again.

Liberals just get pissed off when it is suggested their theories and ideals don't shape and improve society when really it is economics that shapes society and gender roles and people have to adjust accordingly.  Feminist theory is still fucked up and like all left wing manufactured theory rubs against the grain of human nature. I contest it is economics that has given women more freedom than feminist theory ever has done and it will be economics that will change the gender power balance one way or the other in future. Though I think in looking at this in gender terms as opposed to community terms is a cockeyed way of looking at it.



caitlyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 1:58:06 PM)

People would take you more seriously, if you made generalizations, with a bit more caution.
 
These groups you speak of with such authority ... liberals, feminists, left wingers ... you probably know less than 1/100th of one-percent of people that would fall within the scope of any one of these groups.
 
It's a shame, because your point about economics being the greatest factor in freedom for women, is probably a very good one ... but it is completely overshadowed by statement you make like "Liberals just get pissed, etc ... ", where your sample group is so small, so as to make the statement strictly wild conjecture, rather than anything that can be quantified.
 
Perhaps you are that Rush guy that is on the radio ... who for some reason, seems to think he speaks for all conservatives and knows all liberals.



thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 3:34:13 PM)

Be wary of claims of biology when the evidence for such is found in societies. Making such historical = biology claims is used by a variety of people as "facts" for their attempts to discredit others or to promote themselves.

Claims that because things have been one must mean they are biologically based is often used to maintain systems of power when those are threatened by someone not in power. White use it against non-whites, religious groups use it against other faiths, and men and women can manipulate such "evidence" for a variety of reasons.

The goals are never the truth only the maintaince of power or the accumulation of power.

Human societies change all the time often slowly over decades and centuries. If they did not, the vast majority of us on this computer today would not be here discussing this issue.

I wonder of your mother, RealOne, owns property, has a bank account, is registered to vote, had an education outside of being a homemaker, and can use the legal system to protect herself if need be?

You see, all those things grow from the ideas of feminism and I'm betting she uses those changes all the time without consideration of why they happened or what life was like before these changes. I've noticed some women happily use the rights that feminism won for them and then complain loudly about how bad it is or who say they they aren't feminists.

I think perhaps those women should spend some time in the nations where feminism as made no to little changes but I'm betting they enjoy the rights they have too much to truly give them up. Even though who claim to want to be slaves in some natural state as women enslaved to men will add that they want the right to determine who they kneel to (something else that feminist ideas promoted, mutual consent by both parties not just parental/patriarchical choice).

Take for example your idea about feminism destroying families.

How exactly can how I live my life affect your family dynamic? No one has outlawed marriage have they? No one forces a married woman to get a job (unless its a "conservative" trend in government to curb spending by making folks work before getting aid). No one forces a woman to not take her husband's name. I see no way that feminism can have affected your mother's or your marriage unless she or you allowed it to do so.



meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 4:42:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

Take for example your idea about feminism destroying families.

How exactly can how I live my life affect your family dynamic? No one has outlawed marriage have they? No one forces a married woman to get a job (unless its a "conservative" trend in government to curb spending by making folks work before getting aid). No one forces a woman to not take her husband's name. I see no way that feminism can have affected your mother's or your marriage unless she or you allowed it to do so.


Social dynamics, government policies and the allocation of resources. Whichever side of the political fence you are on or even if you just sit on the fence, the accumulation of choices into trends by people, affects social dynamics and causes politicians to modify policies.

One person making a particular choice would have no affect but people aren't the free thinking individuals we all like to think we are. Behaviour and decisions whether motivated by economics or fickle fashion or whatever are usually adopted by large numbers of people.



thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 4:59:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

Take for example your idea about feminism destroying families.

How exactly can how I live my life affect your family dynamic? No one has outlawed marriage have they? No one forces a married woman to get a job (unless its a "conservative" trend in government to curb spending by making folks work before getting aid). No one forces a woman to not take her husband's name. I see no way that feminism can have affected your mother's or your marriage unless she or you allowed it to do so.


Social dynamics, government policies and the allocation of resources. Whichever side of the political fence you are on or even if you just sit on the fence, the accumulation of choices into trends by people, affects social dynamics and causes politicians to modify policies.

One person making a particular choice would have no affect but people aren't the free thinking individuals we all like to think we are. Behaviour and decisions whether motivated by economics or fickle fashion or whatever are usually adopted by large numbers of people.


In other words, the claim that feminism destroys families must be untrue because it alone could not account for these multitude of facets you mention.

Plus, as a historian, I can tell you all that these cries of the family being destroyed are almost as old as written records. Various causes are cited every century and every decade and in general it seems to be those in power who cry the loudest when they feel that power threatened.

Same thing with the idea of "the good old days" -- which ones and when? These cries too are almost as old as human history.



meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 5:19:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

In other words, the claim that feminism destroys families must be untrue because it alone could not account for these multitude of facets you mention.

Plus, as a historian, I can tell you all that these cries of the family being destroyed are almost as old as written records. Various causes are cited every century and every decade and in general it seems to be those in power who cry the loudest when they feel that power threatened.

Same thing with the idea of "the good old days" -- which ones and when? These cries too are almost as old as human history.


I don't think anyone suggested just one trend would destroy the fabric of society, it is usually the accumulation of choices brought about by circumstance whether economic or social that lead to rips in the social fabric. My own personal belief is that our personal choices are largely governed by economic factors. It is only when an individual has a surplus of wealth do choices open up for them. The majority of people have to earn their living where and when they can which was where I came in, by saying feminist theory is the product of self interested feminists who claim to have the welfare of women in general at heart but are really only interested in their own aspirations.



KittenWithaTwist -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 5:31:01 PM)

quote:

This why i despise femininism; the hatred/disrespect for Men. Damnation; we're equal; everyone has s'thing to contribute.

candystripper


Feminism is not about the hatred of men. Feminism is about making women equal to men on all levels. You may want to look back at all that feminism has done for you, as a woman. Without it, you would not have a career, you may be married off to someone you care nothing about (and may lack the ability to get a divorce). You may have been abused or raped (outright) by your husband and not have the ability to file a complaint, let alone have him prosecuted for abusing you. You may not be allowed to use a computer or have access to the internet. You may not be allowed to act on your desires for BDSM, sex, orgasms, or D/s relationships of your choosing.

Without feminism, it is quite possible you would be a very sheltered housewife with three-eleven children and no choice to follow any other pursuit.



Tristan -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 5:42:19 PM)

Cloudboy,

quote:

So the question is not whether women should lower their expectations. It's whether men will kick it up another notch. To the current generation of wives, here's an update on my friend's advice: Speak up, speak up, your daughters' ''semi-traditional" marriages may depend on it.<


I'm not sure what you are saying with the above statement, but if you are saying that men need to speak up and demand the equivilent of the rights that women demanded a generation ago, I agree. 

I think the issues today include equal access to children post divorce.  Fathers need support in the working world for child raising and they need support in the court system for child custody issues.  There was a case about a year ago that was going before the Ohio Supreme Court concerning fathers rights and equal protection under the law.  The case was based on 95% of custody disputes being resolved in favor of the mothers.  There was a time when women were discouraged from working.  The feminist movement fought those attitudes and won to the benifit of society.  Today, fathers are discouaged from taking time off for child raising and do not get custody in most cases post divorce.  I've heard it said that a father will get custody only if the mother is denounced by a social worker or a blood relative.  This is an equivilent issue.

Reproductive rights is another issue.  There is currently a case going before the US Supreme Court involving a man who's girl friend told him that she was unable to get pregant due to a medical condition she did not have.  Now, he's stuck with a child that he's required to support for the next 18 years.  I've heard of other cases where men are required to pay child support even after the child is determined not to be his biological child.  As it is today, it is the woman who determines if she will have the child, have an abortion, or give the child up for adoption.  The father has no rights or say, but is required to pay child support in the name of what's in the child's best interest if the women decides to keep the child.  This is a complicated issue that almost certainly will not be resolved in the man's favor even though I think it's clear what was done to him was not fair. 

Misandry - let's end the double standard of accepting the bashing of men as acceptable, but the bashing of women as misogyny.  It has a poisoning effect on relationships, and it could be argued that it increases divorce rates and unhappiness in marriage.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.  There are a number of issues that need to be addressed today just as the feminist had issues a generation ago that needed to be addressed.  Again, the problem with feminism that I hear most often is that it is one sided and only one sided.  An acknowledgement of other issues is not a discredit to the feminist cause, but an acknowledgement of other issues will reduce the effectiveness of the political movement.

Yeah, I know, there will be many who will try to pick apart everything I said in order to support their views.  You can always find individual instances that contridict what I said, but I think there is a general trend that most people recognize.  A failure to at least acknowledge that these are issues worth discussing is probably a good indication that you have issues and a political agenda.

In response to RealOne,

quote:

This hatred of feminism wasnt so much from the men as it was from the majority of the women, who the minority dragged into the feminist way of life against their will.



I hear a lot of critism of feminism now from mothers of boys.

Tristan



KittenWithaTwist -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 5:49:12 PM)

quote:

Actually, Sir... i do NOT wish to be equal. i am sure that sounds odd to Mmany but it is truly how i feel


I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. You have a job as a paralegal. If you don't wish to be equal, why not go back to having no job as women were not allowed to do not so long ago. If you don't wish to be equal, would you like to be paid 60% less than a person with a penis doing the same (or possibly even less) work? If that's the case, why waste your time at all? If you don't wish to be equal, why bother going through high school, or having the university education that you probably spent a lot of time and effort on?

Again, these are some of the things that make women equal to men, where, before, we were not. It's all fine and dandy with me if you wish to believe that it is fine to be unequal on a D/s level, but to desire to be unequal to all people who happen to be born XY is...extremely hard to believe.



Tristan -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 6:38:54 PM)

KittenWithaTwist,

quote:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. You have a job as a paralegal. If you don't wish to be equal, why not go back to having no job as women were not allowed to do not so long ago. If you don't wish to be equal, would you like to be paid 60% less than a person with a penis doing the same (or possibly even less) work? If that's the case, why waste your time at all? If you don't wish to be equal, why bother going through high school, or having the university education that you probably spent a lot of time and effort on?

Again, these are some of the things that make women equal to men, where, before, we were not. It's all fine and dandy with me if you wish to believe that it is fine to be unequal on a D/s level, but to desire to be unequal to all people who happen to be born XY is...extremely hard to believe.


Women get paid less than men for equal work in some jobs and get paid more than men for equal work in other jobs.  I've been reading a lot of interesting articles on Warren Farrell's new book "Why Men Earn More".  I'm looking forward to reading it when my library gets a copy.  According to what I've been reading, you might be able to earn more than someone with a penis for the same amount of work if you chose the right job.  lol.

I think you are also confusing a division of labor with repression.  Yes, women had it hard raising many children and staying at home.  And, yes, men had it hard working in the factories or the farm.  Until recently, very few men (or women) had interesting and rewarding jobs.  Both men and women were working basically from dawn until dusk just to get by.  Social standards were developed around this fact.  And don't forget, having lots of children could be an asset (free labor) and a retirement plan. 

Men did not have the option of staying home from the factory or not plowing the field just as women did not have the option of not having and raising children.  We tend to look back and only see the hardships of women.  Life just sucked!  Most of us have never experienced a hardship, and most do not even know anyone who has.

Changes happen slowly and with reluctance.  It is generally the generation after a change that sees what needs to be done and makes the changes.  The young are often the ones that see social injustice most accutely and are most willing to fight social injustice.  If it were men who were the repressors of women, why did they give up power in the 1960s and 1970s after thousands of years of repression?

Tristan



Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 9:13:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
Be wary of claims of biology when the evidence for such is found in societies. Making such historical = biology claims is used by a variety of people as "facts" for their attempts to discredit others or to promote themselves.

Claims that because things have been one must mean they are biologically based is often used to maintain systems of power when those are threatened by someone not in power. White use it against non-whites, religious groups use it against other faiths, and men and women can manipulate such "evidence" for a variety of reasons.


i have yet to see the average baby suckle from the average male.  

and thats a fact.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
The goals are never the truth only the maintaince of power or the accumulation of power. 

yes the feminist movement was very much about accumulation of power.  Often times under false pretenses.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
I wonder of your mother, RealOne, owns property, has a bank account, is registered to vote, had an education outside of being a homemaker, and can use the legal system to protect herself if need be?

You see, all those things grow from the ideas of feminism and I'm betting she uses those changes all the time without consideration of why they happened or what life was like before these changes. I've noticed some women happily use the rights that feminism won for them and then complain loudly about how bad it is or who say they they aren't feminists. 


What are you trying to say?  morsels thanks to the feminists movement?  i think not!

In 1870 an estimated one fifth of resident college and university students were women. By 1900 the proportion had increased to more than one third.

a woman could sue her husband. Mississippi in 1839, followed by New York in 1848 and Massachusetts in 1854, passed laws allowing married women to own property separate from their husbands.

Prior to the 1800s there were almost no medical schools, and virtually any enterprising person could practice medicine.

Jeanette Rankin of Montana, elected in 1917, was the first woman member of the United States House of Representatives.

There were always people who spoke out against the staus quo, but the feminists like to take credit for rights that have been in place long before the movement ever came into existance.  They add anyone to the list that bitched about making supper for their man since the cave man days as part of the "feminist movement"

My mother enjoys the freedoms that were here long before the feminists went on the rampage.  I am not so sure voting was the result of any feminist activity i would have to research that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
Take for example your idea about feminism destroying families.

How exactly can how I live my life affect your family dynamic? No one has outlawed marriage have they? No one forces a married woman to get a job (unless its a "conservative" trend in government to curb spending by making folks work before getting aid). No one forces a woman to not take her husband's name. I see no way that feminism can have affected your mother's or your marriage unless she or you allowed it to do so. 


It didnt. they celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary over 5 years ago, but then not everyone in this country is as educated as my mother either. 

The fact that you claim to be a feminist is pretty obvious that no answer to this problem that does not conform to feminist thinking would be suitable to you and is a waste of time even going there.

Now tell me how many feminists have been married one time and live happily ever after as my parents are?

Lets talk about prohibition for a while and the effects that had on society!  LOL

same tired stuff



Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 9:29:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KittenWithaTwist

quote:

This why i despise femininism; the hatred/disrespect for Men. Damnation; we're equal; everyone has s'thing to contribute.

candystripper


Feminism is not about the hatred of men. Feminism is about making women equal to men on all levels. You may want to look back at all that feminism has done for you, as a woman. Without it, you would not have a career, you may be married off to someone you care nothing about (and may lack the ability to get a divorce). You may have been abused or raped (outright) by your husband and not have the ability to file a complaint, let alone have him prosecuted for abusing you. You may not be allowed to use a computer or have access to the internet. You may not be allowed to act on your desires for BDSM, sex, orgasms, or D/s relationships of your choosing.

Without feminism, it is quite possible you would be a very sheltered housewife with three-eleven children and no choice to follow any other pursuit. 


feminist women act as if this was all some diabolical male plot against women.

there was a time when that was all there was availiable as a matter of survival.  women were only to happy to take care of the kids and be suzy homemaker when hubby was out killing the wolf that was in the chicken house and had blisters down to the bone from plowing the fields. 

i know you arent talking about the us of a when you talk about all these "cants"

it seems to me feminism would like to claim its not about the hatred of man as much as they would like to take credit for everything that was a product of social evolution.






Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875