RE: Is Elise Sutton right?

RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (Full Version)

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

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 11:52:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo post 231: snipped it all! you know i started to respond to this but the time it would have taken me to fix this mess due to your lack of proper quoting simply isnt worth my time. so in a word i will just leave it at: what you say is incorrect and seen thru your feminist filters rather than debate this with you. if you want to fix this mess then i will happily continue with you on the subject.

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 12:15:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo 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. at various points in history it was also a product of: the american indian. many tribes of afrika. much of russia. several eastern cultures. yes the middle class. finally rural or woodsman life as this and many nations were at one time if you limit your scope to european upper class as the majority of human beings i suppose you can say what you did. if we can include people as late as the middle class it seems pretty reasonable to suggest that the majority of human being thruout time can be included in the norm.

MasterHyde -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 2:12:52 PM)
quote: BTW, the first feminist author I'm aware of that advocated universal castration for men was Andrea Dworkin. After being outed at a NYC club as a masochist with a master, she has since backed away from her original posit. Isn't Andrea Dworkin the same woman who's been a leader in the anti-porn camp? And she's been outed as masochistic involved in a relationship with a male dominant? Woohoo! I love it when Karma comes and kicks you in the ass.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 3:13:01 PM)
She's dead now, actually.

fiddlegirl -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 3:38:43 PM)
Does anyone know of any references for that story about Dworkin at the SM club? It smells like urban legend to me. I didn't see any mention of it in the Wikipedia article about Dworkin, nor in the first couple of pages of a google search on Dworkin+bdsm. Fiddlegirl

maybeican -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 3:46:32 PM)
I think it is up to each situation, between Dom and sub. For me, a Lady of distinction is my mentor, that I learn from to be the best I can be. I believe all people deserve a chance to prove themselves.

Level -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 4:05:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Submotive 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. "We are individuals"..........yes....I think that applies to us all, male and female. I've said this before: I have never known courage, fear, intellect, stupidity, honor, deceit, love, or hate to observe any racial, age, or gender boundaries.

Aimtoplease101 -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 5:51:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: Submotive 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. "We are individuals"..........yes....I think that applies to us all, male and female. I've said this before: I have never known courage, fear, intellect, stupidity, honor, deceit, love, or hate to observe any racial, age, or gender boundaries. Nor, for that matter, to any particular orientation, be it domme, sub or otherwise. ATP

Level -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 6:16:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aimtoplease101 quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: Submotive 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. "We are individuals"..........yes....I think that applies to us all, male and female. I've said this before: I have never known courage, fear, intellect, stupidity, honor, deceit, love, or hate to observe any racial, age, or gender boundaries. Nor, for that matter, to any particular orientation, be it domme, sub or otherwise. ATP Agreed.

Tristan -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:02:40 PM)
thetammyjo, quote: Do you hold racial civil rights and gay civil rights and religious civil rights movements to these same standards? Yes, but maybe that's just the result of my buddhist nature. lol. Tristan

Level -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:14:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tristan thetammyjo, quote: Do you hold racial civil rights and gay civil rights and religious civil rights movements to these same standards? Yes, but maybe that's just the result of my buddhist nature. lol. Tristan Well, namaste to you too, buddy. grins

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 7:57:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo 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. at various points in history it was also a product of: the american indian. many tribes of afrika. much of russia. several eastern cultures. yes the middle class. finally rural or woodsman life as this and many nations were at one time if you limit your scope to european upper class as the majority of human beings i suppose you can say what you did. if we can include people as late as the middle class it seems pretty reasonable to suggest that the majority of human being thruout time can be included in the norm. Sorry you are incorrect. I'm a historian who actually studies families (as well as slavery and intellectual developments) in a wide range of time periods and cultures -- including Africa, Asia, and Native American societies as well as ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern Europe. The norm for all of human history everywhere appears to be that everyone works outside the home in some fashion. There is no universal and timeless breadwinner-homemaker divide as you'd like to believe. Most people are fighting to survive too much to actually think they can make it with such a divide. Its a nice Victorian middle-class ideal that Europeans tried to force (with varying degrees of success) onto non-European cultures. But even in most European societies it was and is not viable (or desireable) for most families. There are some families today that do believe this is the best approach to their structure, some do not. Families of all sorts survive and reproduce as it has been the case for centuries and centuries. There are better approaches in different times and settings but there are no universals.

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 8:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo post 231: snipped it all! you know i started to respond to this but the time it would have taken me to fix this mess due to your lack of proper quoting simply isnt worth my time. so in a word i will just leave it at: what you say is incorrect and seen thru your feminist filters rather than debate this with you. if you want to fix this mess then i will happily continue with you on the subject. I never claimed to be a computer genius and with you snipping up what I discussed into so many pieces I tried to respond in kind. I'd say that your anti-feminist filters are pretty damned strong. Yet I do not think you are misogynistic (sorry this feminist doesn't go tossing that word around unless she has evidence to support it). I think that you have strong feelings for a reason I still do not understand. You try to back these with sound bites and theories and lots of rherotic -- a general and very well used approach in many arguments and used by all types of people for all sorts of reasons. And I actually haven't yet said what I believe in terms of feminism other than in two areas: I think a lot of people (you included) are making incredibly broad and unsupported claims about a social movement called feminism; the other is that equality has not been achieved yet in the USA in terms of sex as a category for treatment.

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 8:14:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tristan thetammyjo, quote: Do you hold racial civil rights and gay civil rights and religious civil rights movements to these same standards? Yes, but maybe that's just the result of my buddhist nature. lol. Tristan Good. I'm glad that you apply the same principals to other social movements. I try to understand social movements (whether I'm in them or not) from a historical prespective and from a goal focus. What are they trying to achieve and how have they gone about attempting to reach the goals? Social movements rarely achieve all of their goals because societies change slowly and because all social movements fraction into different branches (which is good and bad for reasons in terms of reaching said goals). One of the most annoying things (for me) in this entire thread are the ideas that feminism or any social movement is some unified entity when that is simply untrue and that it is exists outside of a historical or social context. Portraying a social movement as an evil is ignoring the basics about social movements, why they happen, and how they operate. It may work great as rhetoric but it is not the same as evidence or fact. I'm not claiming, Tristan, that you are saying any social movement is an evil.

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 9:57:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo The norm for all of human history everywhere appears to be that everyone works outside the home in some fashion. There is no universal and timeless breadwinner-homemaker divide as you'd like to believe. Most people are fighting to survive too much to actually think they can make it with such a divide. Where a man or woman chooses to work is totally irrelevant. i never said that the women did not work or function outside the home. that is not the argument and never was. that is your twist. i said that the male throughout history leans toward bread winning if you will, and the female toward nurturing. i have no idea where you are coming from or where you get your information, but even now in this progressive world that we live in today as i look around me, my family it was that way, my brothers and sisters families it is that way, most of my relatives it is that way, the majority of their relatives it is that way, and most of our neighbors it is that way. i have many friends in different parts of the world, 3rd world countries included and for the most part in their families its that way. but since you are a historian i guess you feel you are the only one qualified to speak to the subject the world around us not withstanding. quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I'd say that your anti-feminist filters are pretty damned strong. No filters at all. i am neither feminist nor antifeminist, nor blind, and i am just as capable as reading a history book as you are. quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Yet I do not think you are misogynistic (sorry this feminist doesn't go tossing that word around unless she has evidence to support it). i am surprised that the thought even crossed your mind. quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I think that you have strong feelings for a reason I still do not understand. You try to back these with sound bites and theories and lots of rherotic -- a general and very well used approach in many arguments and used by all types of people for all sorts of reasons. and this quote is an example of what? quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo And I actually haven't yet said what I believe in terms of feminism other than in two areas: I think a lot of people (you included) are making incredibly broad and unsupported claims about a social movement called feminism; the other is that equality has not been achieved yet in the USA in terms of sex as a category for treatment. frankly i share the same opinion of you with the exception that i feel i am correct and you are incorrect. it seems to me many cases have been sited where female equality has been over achieved.

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 10:09:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I try to understand social movements (whether I'm in them or not) from a historical prespective and from a goal focus. What are they trying to achieve and how have they gone about attempting to reach the goals? Social movements rarely achieve all of their goals because societies change slowly and because all social movements fraction into different branches (which is good and bad for reasons in terms of reaching said goals). One of the most annoying things (for me) in this entire thread are the ideas that feminism or any social movement is some unified entity when that is simply untrue and that it is exists outside of a historical or social context. Portraying a social movement as an evil is ignoring the basics about social movements, why they happen, and how they operate. It may work great as rhetoric but it is not the same as evidence or fact. for all intents and purposes, hitler started out as a social movement. 1 man. since when does a social movement require a unified front of millions of people? it only takes one in the right place at the right time. i did not see any evidence of the basics being ignored and how they operated is exactly why so many people are pissed off at them.

subtlesubie -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 10:46:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Many men (not all) spent thousands of years doing everything they could to keep women down. Many men (not all) spent thousands of milli-seconds doing everything they could to not laugh at this line.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/22/2006 11:06:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fiddlegirl Does anyone know of any references for that story about Dworkin at the SM club? It smells like urban legend to me. I didn't see any mention of it in the Wikipedia article about Dworkin, nor in the first couple of pages of a google search on Dworkin+bdsm. Fiddlegirl It's too good a story to prove it wrong and it sounds credible to most people outside the lifestyle because they think BDSM is fucked up and what Dworkin spouted showed she was obviously fucked up too! Even if it was a case of 2 + 2 = 5, this mythic story deserves to run and run because Dworkin was really mentally and intellectually fucked up.

amayos -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 1:08:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL:subtlesubie quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Many men (not all) spent thousands of years doing everything they could to keep women down. Many men (not all) spent thousands of milli-seconds doing everything they could to not laugh at this line. I'm one of the men who did not laugh at this line. I think caitlyn has touched upon something simple but quite crucial; that before our contemporary age a natural order prevailed (no doubt since the dawn of our species) in which the female was indeed subjugated and made servant to the male. Vestiges of these ways are still alive in many parts of the world and are just below the surface—even in daily male / female interactions within our "enlightened" Western society. The simple reality is feminist ideals have taken the collective (genetic?) memory of thousands of years of human behavior and stood it upon its head. In doing this, they are essentially asking for something that is unnatural, not necessarily wrong in a moral sense. Since primitive days humans have followed a simple code of might makes right, which has in general belonged to the male. But our past century of modern industrialization and constitutional republic has offered a causeway for women in which they have been allowed to press for equality and make true headway without the aid of a queen or empress. Much of this progress has been good and tolerated by the male half of the species. It is the latter incarnation of the feminist movement, entrenching itself snugly and shielded by liberal politics, education and media, which seems to have conceived aims beyond mere equality to cultural brainwashing. The basic message is: men are idiots and cruel simpletons who are easily lead around by their cocks. The growing number of men who seem to be "pissed off" about feminism may be so due to this prevalence, and they have every right to be so, according to their nature. Males have been asked (or more to the point, pressured) to tolerate a tremendous amount of change in the way our sexes relate socially in such a relatively blunt period of time when compared to the overall arm of human history. Much of the change has been for the better when addressing egalitarian ideals. I just think it is very unwise to attempt pushing the pendulum too far the other way, however.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 1:55:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos The simple reality is feminist ideals have taken the collective (genetic?) memory of thousands of years of human behavior and stood it upon its head. In doing this, they are essentially asking for something that is unnatural, not necessarily wrong in a moral sense. Since primitive days humans have followed a simple code of might makes right, which has in general belonged to the male. But our past century of modern industrialization and constitutional republic has offered a causeway for women in which they have been allowed to press for equality and make true headway without the aid of a queen or empress. Much of this progress has been good and tolerated by the male half of the species. It is the latter incarnation of the feminist movement, entrenching itself snugly and shielded by liberal politics, education and media, which seems to have conceived aims beyond mere equality to cultural brainwashing. The basic message is: men are idiots and cruel simpletons who are easily lead around by their cocks. The growing number of men who seem to be "pissed off" about feminism may be so due to this prevalence, and they have every right to be so, according to their nature. Sorry but this is simplistic bullshit and the sort of stuff one would spout as an undergraduate to illustrate to an attractive fellow student of the female variety, that you are really a sensitive male and worthy of getting in her pants and giving her a good fucking. I accept that posting on threads one has to reduce ones views to little more than sound bites for them to be read and replied to but what you have just written is nonsense.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875