RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (Full Version)

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



Message

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/21/2006 9:47:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristan

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. 

Tristan


i for one do not plan on holding my breath waiting for one of these wonderful fair minded feminists who claim to support "equal" rights for all "women and men" to speak out against the unfairness that is occurring to men any time soon.   To the contrary i expect they are patting themselves on the back and fail to recognize this as a problem, much less one they fueled.





NeedToUseYou -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 3:38:27 AM)

Since this thread is still going. The essential problem with feminism, or most of the isms that exist today. All of these groups claim unfair treatment, in one form or another. Now take feminism, Feminists believe that women aren't given equal treatment, in other words they are being oppressed. Okay, fine, but in order to be oppressed the feminist must have a equally large and powerful group to do that. If you've excluded all the women(by definition) well you're saying  men are oppressing women. I'm unclear how an expression that one group is oppressing another is not supposed to illicit a negative response.

So, if I say all women are this or that(which I did in my first profile, and thus corrected it as a gross overstatement), are you going to be cool with that. So what if I said something equivalent to all men are oppressors, like women are irrational and shouldn't be in charge. Oh boy people don't like that, or if I said women are can't control there emotions and that's why they aren't in positions of power. uhhhh, you wouldn't like that either. So, it's no suprise, that men in general that feel they are good people, and fair minded wouldn't react positively, to a ideology that suggests they are oppressors (be it by nature or environment).

So, the declaration I'm a feminist translates into, I think men want to oppress me. Similiar, to a racist. There is no evidence for this, government policy which has all been changed to give women inarguably equal rights has occurred. So, what in the world are feminists fighting for. I agree (and I'm only talking about this country) that feminism had it's place but there is nothing left to get. Because the way I'm looking at it, if feminists gain anymore rights they will have rights others don't have, because everything is already equal in the law. Some argue this has already occured.

So, if women have equal rights is the goal now to get superior rights? This is why people object, and personally I believe it as well. Anything more than already has been gotten in terms of  upward mobility and rights is there already. To get anymore would be to supress the feminists lesser half(males) to a disadvantaged position. So, Feminist today equals I want more than you because I'm a woman.

Sorry, this is the only conclusion I can derive. If feminist aren't fighting for equal rights(already have it) then they must be fighting for unequal rights(in the opposite direction).

If you don't agree with that, well, I don't know what to say. Pull me up some enforced law that gives women the short end of the stick.

So, seeing that we are equal in the law. Then the overall goal of feminism has nothing to do with equal treatment by any government, or law bearing structure(rights). It is simply, that feminists want me to view my role as a man differently or to be lesser than the role of a woman, and say that I'm oppressing if I don't conform.  If I'm off base here explain what the practical goals of feminism are(As in specifics not catch phrases). Because my limited brain can only draw the conclusion if one has equal rights and continues to fight for rights then they must be fighting for unequal rights. Simple, excuse me I have to go oppress a woman. hehe.

Thanks.  



redangel -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 4:02:41 AM)

I disagree... from the beginning we have sought wisdom from the wise women, but strength-- physically, from men as the protectors.



Tristan -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 4:05:27 AM)

RealOne,

quote:

i for one do not plan on holding my breath waiting for one of these wonderful fair minded feminists who claim to support "equal" rights for all "women and men" to speak out against the unfairness that is occurring to men any time soon.   To the contrary i expect they are patting themselves on the back and fail to recognize this as a problem, much less one they fueled.


This is exactly why people (both men and women) have problems with feminism.  Feminism is one sided and only one sided.  Feminists are creating a world in where their daughters have more choices and rights than their sons.  They are creating a world in which their daughters have a longer life expectancy than their sons.  If you think that life expectancy is biological, then how do you explain that the difference in the life expectancy of white women and black women is greater than that of men and women?  They are creating a world in which their daughters have more access to their children than their sons.  They are creating a world in which their sons are told that no matter how decent of a person you are, you are still an oppressive misogynist and we need laws to protect the decent people from you.

If you bring up these issues, the feminists will tell you that you are a sexist misogynist not fit for human society.  lol.  The failure of feminism to address these issues or even let these issues be discussed is a pretty good indication that feminism is only about political power and not about fairness.

Tristan



meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 5:07:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redangel

I disagree... from the beginning we have sought wisdom from the wise women, but strength-- physically, from men as the protectors.


Hmm Interesting point about the wisdom of women. In the history of philosophy it is noticeable that female philosophers seem largely absent except for those fixated on the roles of women and leave just about the rest of the entire field of philosophy to men. Now as far as I'm aware, women have never been so oppressed they are not allowed to think yet their contribution to western thought hasn't been that great. Even in the field of the 'common sense' school of thought, women haven't proved to be so prominent. Now whether this is to do with socialisation or biology or both, who knows.



Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:08:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristan
They are creating a world in which their sons are told that no matter how decent of a person you are, you are still an oppressive misogynist and we need laws to protect the decent people from you.
Tristan


that is so very tru and so very sad. 



thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:20:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

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.


This is a valid critique of much of liberal and cultural feminism I think which tended to be populated but middle and upper-middle class white women though the demographics have changed over the decades.

It could be valid critique of any social or political movement. I took a history seminar on various social and political movements since the 18th century a few years ago. One common factor was that the leaders in movements tended to be upper-middle class fairly highly educated individuals. The reasons were two fold: first, they had the time and the education that enabled them to form groups and the rhetoric needed to promote them. second, was a personal motivation -- that could be viewed selfishly or unselfishly depending on the documentation and the criteria for judging them.

So again I see a standard criticism that could be applied to any social or political movement that is targeted at feminism. Perhaps this is just the tone of this discussion.

Frankly I don't think feminism and female supermacy are the same at all so I have no clue how this feminism aspect got into this discussion. I'll note that on the "Ask a Mistress" forum when a similar topic came up several people who self identified as female supermacists did not like feminism though they didn't expand on why. My guess would be that idea of giving women similar rights (and responsibilities) to men would be lowering women in their eyes?



cloudboy -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:28:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristan

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.


No, that is not what I was saying. That text was from Ellen Goodman's syndicated column, wherein she put forth the theory that feminists have improved the lot of traditional women in the U.S. because now men are more conscientious parents and household contributors.




meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:35:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

Frankly I don't think feminism and female supermacy are the same at all so I have no clue how this feminism aspect got into this discussion. I'll note that on the "Ask a Mistress" forum when a similar topic came up several people who self identified as female supermacists did not like feminism though they didn't expand on why. My guess would be that idea of giving women similar rights (and responsibilities) to men would be lowering women in their eyes?


Well many feminists expound femals supremacy views. I guess that's how feminism got into the discussion.



meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:40:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristan

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.


No, that is not what I was saying. That text was from Ellen Goodman's syndicated column, wherein she put forth the theory that feminists have improved the lot of traditional women in the U.S. because now men are more conscientious parents and household contributors.




Which men are more conscious? There is a rise in numbers of single mothers, now this might be of choice or it might not be.

However, more men have little to do with their offspring than ever before. One can't put this down to one particular reason but certainly in the inner cities where there is high male unemployment, a woman keeping an idle man is expensive so she is more likely to live alone and the young male free from responsiblity goes about his course in petty crime and drug dealing to make a buck.



thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:48:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

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.


And how does this relate to power dynamics between men and women?

I could see how it relates to survival of a baby or the power dynamics between mother and child.

Not to mention the fact that once he's inseminated someone the males job in reproduction is pretty much done. Does having a partner increase the likelihood that the baby and mother will survive? Yes, but that does not need to be the baby's biological father or even a man. Even a traditional woman with a traditional marriage can survive with her children after the man dies because of other support systems and sometimes simply but her and the children's hard work. This seems to be true from the beginning of time.

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.


Where is this great feminism power? Why don't I get kick backs from it as a feminist? How do I have more power than let's say your mother? She has the same legal rights as I do as a woman in America at the beginning of the 21st century.

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.


You clearly do not know the roots of feminism or when it began plus your historical facts are very shaky. Feminism isn't a creation of the 20th century its been around for a few centuries and the changes it helped make were often very slow as is the case for most social change. I could give you a historical lesson but I doubt very much you would care about the revolutions of the 18th centuries and the beginning of feminist theories.

Feminism rampage huh? When was this exactly? I didn't get the memo on that and apparently missed it.

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.


And you clearly hate feminism and so your mind is equally as closed if mine is.

I also note that you never want to address non-feminism similarity with other social and political movements. As a scholar and a historian I really don't see feminism is very unique except in its focus on women. Would you criticism civil rights, gay rights, or religious rights movements for being too focused on one race, one orientation or one diety?

Why do you have a problem with people wanting to be treated as people? Why do you have a problem with equality or equal rights and responsibilities?

How does a woman who had the same rights as responsibilities harm you? I'm talking the same rights and responsibilities as far as can be exercised. Maybe someday we'll have technology that wil enable a man to give birth or a woman to inseminate someone but we don't now.

If a woman had the same rights as you the world would be a bit different that is true but currently she does not. When a man turns 18 he must register for the draft in the USA; the woman does not. Our government talks about controling women's reproductive choices at the the very beginning of reproduction; they only legislate men's roles after the baby is born. There are not equal rights and responsibilities.

quote:


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


This is ridiculous. I'm suppose you wish to claim that only women and only feminist women file for divorce.

quote:


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

same tired stuff



Hello? The ERA didn't pass therefore your attempt to claim feminism as similar status legally to prohibition is foolish.




caitlyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:50:00 AM)

Most societies of antiquity forbade the education of women, which played a large part in why most of the writers of antiquity are male.
 
One of the first societies that encouraged the education of women, was that of the Byzantines, and we have several prominant women writers from the Byzantine period that write about history, phylosophy, warfare, politics ... as a point of fact, you can read Byzantine history from now until eternity, and not find a single author, male or female, that wrote about "women's issues."
 
I'm not a feminist. I think feminism had it's purpose at one time, securing the vote for women ... securing roughly equal pay for equal work ... allowing access to educational opportunities ... and of course, Title-9, which has allowed several of my friends to get an education based on athletic accomplishments. Everything else is just fluff ... designed to stir the pot, stir the masses, promote political agendas and most of all, sell books.
 
That said ... revisionists can't run away from history. At one time, in western society, there was a need to brand men as "the enemy" on certain issues. It certainly wasn't women that were denying women the vote. It certainly wasn't women that were denying women equal pay for equal work. It certainly wasn't women that limited access to college prep. classes on the high school level, such that young girls were not at all ready to enter college. In the 1940's, here in Texas, they actually passed a law requiring High School seniors to passing a required class in order to gain admittance to state funded Universities. This same law, excluded minorities, one of which was women, from taking this class. This law stayed on the books until 1963, which is how private schools like SMU, Trinity and Rice, became so female dominated.
 
Many men (not all) spent thousands of years doing everything they could to keep women down. Women are not down anymore, so either they must have been strong enough to bring themselves up, or men gave in and gave them equality.
 
If it's the former, that is natural evolution, and the only answer is, that if someone doesn't like their lot in life, they need to work harder.
 
If it's the latter, men got what you wanted, so stfu. [;)]



thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:58:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

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.



When was this exactly?

When you actually look at historical records you discover that men and women both worked outside the home and on the farms unless they were upper-class. In the upper-classes men and women had parallel social roles and until democracies some parallel political and economic power and authority

This idea of homemaker and breadwinner is really a product of the 19th century middle-class Victorian ideas. It functioned as one way to distinguish that middle class from lower and upper classes. As the middle class grew in economic and political power their norms started to be promoted in general society.

This idea of homemaker and breadwinner is not the norm for most of human history for the majority of human beings.



thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 8:11:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

So, the declaration I'm a feminist translates into, I think men want to oppress me. Similiar, to a racist. There is no evidence for this, government policy which has all been changed to give women inarguably equal rights has occurred. So, what in the world are feminists fighting for. I agree (and I'm only talking about this country) that feminism had it's place but there is nothing left to get. Because the way I'm looking at it, if feminists gain anymore rights they will have rights others don't have, because everything is already equal in the law. Some argue this has already occured.


I'm sorry I don't think women have legal equal rights. The ERA didn't pass folks, you can still use a person's sex to discriminate and it occurs but to men and women by the way. When the ERA was proposed it was misrepresented as promoting female or women's rights, as giving women special privileges. No where in the admendment were the words "female" "male" "woman" or "man" listed. It simply outlawed sex as a consideration for legal rights.

Since men seem to be very threatened by this I'll use an example of inequalities that still exist because there are not equal rights that I hope you as men can see and relate to.

I didn't have to register for the military draft but my husband and my slave did simply because we are different sexes.

If there were equal rights, the above wouldn't happen, couldn't happen. We'd either have a universal draft or no draft.

There are legally (and socially) pluses and minuses to being a man and a woman, negatives and positives about each, but there is not legal equality yet. Is it better? Damn straight it is, but better is not equal.

I don't think equality will happen in my lifetime -- social changes, the real foundations of most legal changes, take a long time to happen as Tristan as previously pointed out.



thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 8:25:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: redangel

I disagree... from the beginning we have sought wisdom from the wise women, but strength-- physically, from men as the protectors.


Hmm Interesting point about the wisdom of women. In the history of philosophy it is noticeable that female philosophers seem largely absent except for those fixated on the roles of women and leave just about the rest of the entire field of philosophy to men. Now as far as I'm aware, women have never been so oppressed they are not allowed to think yet their contribution to western thought hasn't been that great. Even in the field of the 'common sense' school of thought, women haven't proved to be so prominent. Now whether this is to do with socialisation or biology or both, who knows.


Well, in order to leave evidence of your philosophy you need a few things: education so you can leave evidence, time to produce that evidence, and followers who will keep copies of your evidence.

And what is philosophy? Would those things your mother and father taught you as a child count as philosophy and if not, why not? Who decided what was included in the study of philosophy and what counted as philosophy? Who is encouraged to become philosophers and who enables them to have the education, the time and the who values them enough to keep records?

That there have been female philosophers, to stick with your example, suggest that it can't be biology otherwise how could they do it unless they were mutants (a mutation can be benefical or harmful)?

In my opinion, because human beings are social creatures who live in social units it would be near to impossible to prove biological basis for differences in achievement, interests, and most abilities on the simple basis of sex (or race or ethnic group, etc). Testing such claims of biology would require studies that removed newborns at birth (or the growth of humans outside of the body since there are studies suggesting lifestyle of the mother affect the baby not just physically but otherwise before birth). This test subjects would have to be isolated from all human society and I'm betting most people would be offended at the suggestion of doing so.

So claims of biology as the determinate of social dynamics seems quite unproveable to me. I see too much variations between individuals to believe there is some Platonic Idea of male-female dynamics.



thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 8:27:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristan

RealOne,

quote:

i for one do not plan on holding my breath waiting for one of these wonderful fair minded feminists who claim to support "equal" rights for all "women and men" to speak out against the unfairness that is occurring to men any time soon. To the contrary i expect they are patting themselves on the back and fail to recognize this as a problem, much less one they fueled.


This is exactly why people (both men and women) have problems with feminism. Feminism is one sided and only one sided. Feminists are creating a world in where their daughters have more choices and rights than their sons. They are creating a world in which their daughters have a longer life expectancy than their sons. If you think that life expectancy is biological, then how do you explain that the difference in the life expectancy of white women and black women is greater than that of men and women? They are creating a world in which their daughters have more access to their children than their sons. They are creating a world in which their sons are told that no matter how decent of a person you are, you are still an oppressive misogynist and we need laws to protect the decent people from you.

If you bring up these issues, the feminists will tell you that you are a sexist misogynist not fit for human society. lol. The failure of feminism to address these issues or even let these issues be discussed is a pretty good indication that feminism is only about political power and not about fairness.

Tristan


Do you hold racial civil rights and gay civil rights and religious civil rights movements to these same standards?



meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 8:38:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Most societies of antiquity forbade the education of women, which played a large part in why most of the writers of antiquity are male.
 
One of the first societies that encouraged the education of women, was that of the Byzantines, and we have several prominant women writers from the Byzantine period that write about history, phylosophy, warfare, politics ... as a point of fact, you can read Byzantine history from now until eternity, and not find a single author, male or female, that wrote about "women's issues."
 
I'm not a feminist. I think feminism had it's purpose at one time, securing the vote for women ... securing roughly equal pay for equal work ... allowing access to educational opportunities ... and of course, Title-9, which has allowed several of my friends to get an education based on athletic accomplishments. Everything else is just fluff ... designed to stir the pot, stir the masses, promote political agendas and most of all, sell books.
 
That said ... revisionists can't run away from history. At one time, in western society, there was a need to brand men as "the enemy" on certain issues. It certainly wasn't women that were denying women the vote. It certainly wasn't women that were denying women equal pay for equal work. It certainly wasn't women that limited access to college prep. classes on the high school level, such that young girls were not at all ready to enter college. In the 1940's, here in Texas, they actually passed a law requiring High School seniors to passing a required class in order to gain admittance to state funded Universities. This same law, excluded minorities, one of which was women, from taking this class. This law stayed on the books until 1963, which is how private schools like SMU, Trinity and Rice, became so female dominated.
 
Many men (not all) spent thousands of years doing everything they could to keep women down. Women are not down anymore, so either they must have been strong enough to bring themselves up, or men gave in and gave them equality.
 
If it's the former, that is natural evolution, and the only answer is, that if someone doesn't like their lot in life, they need to work harder.
 
If it's the latter, men got what you wanted, so stfu. [;)]


Most societies didn't have formal education. I assume you mean Greco-Roman culture.

As for men denying women the vote. For how long do you think there was universal male sufferage before there was universal sufferage? The fact is that most societies were run by a minority of males, not males a s a whole and that the female relatives of the governing males had far more power than the majority of males who had no more power than the femals in their own social class.

As for equal pay. In the industrial revolution women earned more than males because women accepted cheaper wages hence industrialists employed women before males. They then employed children because children cost less than women to employ. It took social movements of men and women to get reform and women and children out of coal mines and steelworks. No doubt feminists see this movement for reform to get women and children out of heavy industry as a male conspiracy so men could earn a living instead of women.

The whole feminist view of history is cockeyed and skewed to it proving what feminists want and away from any objective analysis, that the gender relationship we ended up with and feminisists were so angered by has a lot to do with well meaning reforms. Maybe time rendered those reforms redundant but there was no male conspiracy in them.



cloudboy -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 8:42:27 AM)


So, how does it feel as a "non-feminist" woman to be arguing with a meatclever? You should be glad he's not part of a whole set, because I'm not sure what you would do with the spoons, forks, ladles, and knives.

On another note, I know that picture of you is kind of murky, but has anyone ever told you that you look like Ann Coulter? If so, what was your reaction? Rumour has it she drives an H2.



Submotive -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 8:54:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavejali
Well actually come to think about it, when a submissive male shows affection towards me, i do get this compulsive urge to beat the crap out of him...


LOL - kudos slavejali - i love your posts. and i have that same urge. But it's not because i'm a Domme, i think it's more a feeling of i will show you that you really DON'T want to be a submissive. LOL

It's not because i think men are superior or anything like that. i just don't relate to doing the things that go with being Dominant in a relationship. i tried it once and laughed most of the time and the rest of the time i wanted to hand Him the crop and order Him to beat me. LOL

i have a lot of dominant traits in my personality, which makes submitting quite a challenge at times, but i don't believe women are naturally dominant or superior, nor are we naturally submissive. We are individuals.



caitlyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 11:16:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
So, how does it feel as a "non-feminist" woman to be arguing with a meatclever? You should be glad he's not part of a whole set, because I'm not sure what you would do with the spoons, forks, ladles, and knives.

On another note, I know that picture of you is kind of murky, but has anyone ever told you that you look like Ann Coulter? If so, what was your reaction? Rumour has it she drives an H2.


Ann Coulter is pretty (I guess), but there is something creepy about her ... not because she is a Republican ... I mean, Kay Bailey Hutchison is my hero (Don't tell any of my fellow Democrats [;)]) ... it's just something about her that weirds me out.
 
You can read one of her books in about an hour ... it is literally nothing more than fluff and a "lets bash whatever" fest. On her website, they run a "Conservative Dating Service", a place where people can meet fellow Conservatives for whatever kind of encounters Conservatives have. You can just imagine success stories where people get together to bash "The Clintons" ... and then fuck in the missionary position while chanting, "four more years!"
 
Then again, maybe it's just that Ann has this little bit of a silky blonde mustache that shows up under the bright light of television news shows. What's up with that? Doesn't she have any friends that have her back?
 
Ok ... trashed Ann enough ... truth is, I probably just hate her because of the Hummer thing. [;)]



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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