RE: Is Elise Sutton right?

RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (Full Version)

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

Message

Tristan -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 4:28:46 AM)
What most people are forgetting is that we live in a very unusual period of history that may or may not last much longer. Essentually, for the last two or three generations no one in the US ever goes hungary. Although there are physically demanding jobs, no one person is forced to do physical labor in order to eat. We believe that it has always been this way and always will be this way. As an example of how difficult life was, geneticists tell us that there were twice as many women as men who contributed to our gene pool. So what happened to the half of the men who did not contribute? My guess is that many if not most died in conflicts with surrounding groups or while hunting. We have no way to understand the constant fear of hunger or attack that most people experienced and even now are experiencing. Life was incredibly difficult throughout most of human existance. Values and norms developed around this fact. We are now attempting to go back and use those values and norms as a justification for our own opinions and politics. It's not that simple. We need to look at what's fair now. There is an underlying assumption (possibly guilt) made by many that you can right past wrongs today. Tristan

Tristan -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 4:51:39 AM)
History can be an effective tool to understand who we are as a people and how we got here. It is an equally effective tool (propaganda) at promoting political agendas. Tristan

Lordandmaster -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 5:33:48 AM)
Cleaver, your rhetoric is getting tiresome. In the ten days you've been a member, you've presented your point of view several times; few people have agreed with it; and now you're evidently getting frustrated. We don't call other people's opinions "simplistic bullshit" on here. Comments like that say more about the speaker than the addressee. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Sorry but this is simplistic bullshit

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 5:55:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos 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. you can site specific instances where females were put down if you will and in some cases they do and did exist. However ona tiny bit larger scope of things, that flies in the face that there is a "queen" of england and several other countries have female legislators and rulers. The fact is that males in this country enacted a constitution that works equally for females as it does for males, where is the predudice there? Much of common law was transferred from england to here and this being a rather young couple hundred year old nation had to justify with precedence in the courtroms and that takes time. years not days to get everything in place. Another fact is at the end of ww2 the males of this country had a japanese woman write the constitution for japan. Feminists in many cases are spitting in the faces of the very men in power who are fair minded and who enact laws and principles that empower, support and honor women. The biggest problem is that not only does the pendulum swing to far but they dont know when to give it a rest and will keep pushing till the mood turns against them and they can enjoy the pendulum swinging to far the other way as a result. Much like the the politically non partisan view of the democrats in dealing with racism, the genderally non partisan part of this society will record the greatest legacy of feminism as having done more to divide this country than having accomplished anything significant for women that the process of evolution would not have done in a peaceful manner. as early as the 1800's states were enacting into law that "married" women could own property aside from their husbands, single women always could! no attacks on men were needed to get these laws enacted. Its no wonder that so many women and men are pissed off at feminism not to mention that the feminists as a whole support virtually any activist faction that is against the status quo of what others place high values on in their lives and hold close totheir hearts.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 6:02:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Cleaver, your rhetoric is getting tiresome. In the ten days you've been a member, you've presented your point of view several times; few people have agreed with it; and now you're evidently getting frustrated. We don't call other people's opinions "simplistic bullshit" on here. Comments like that say more about the speaker than the addressee. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Sorry but this is simplistic bullshit '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.' There have been several tribes noted in anthropological studies that are known to be peaceful and some where labour divisions have not been made on gender lines. These tribes have tended to be in remote areas free from encrouchment of potential enemies. Several tribes in the amazon jungle have been observed to change to what is traditional male/female roles and have adopted violence when the community has become stressed through encrouchment. This supports the theory that male/female roles are adopted due to local economics and social conditions. This info can be googled.

lowdeepvoice -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 6:27:59 AM)
Sutton is way off, and dosent have a clue! The Natural Order, is Males are Dominant, by design. There is nothing wrong with a submissive woman, and Im not saying she is less than, Its not a matter of more or less. ( for me , there is nothing better that a submissive woman) Its just the norm, the way things were ment to be, by disign. If you look hard , and long enough, you will find anomalies, look at her, But that dont make it right or the norm.

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 6:28:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new. Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement.

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 6:57:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. I'm going to focus on this since you don't like my inability to use this quotations system -- agreed, very annoying and difficult to read. If you use those people you know as your evidence you are using a very limited pool. I could cite as many examples of variations in family structure from my own limited pool of "people I know". That proves nothing universal at all and certainly nothing biological it merely shows what type of people you feel comfortable associating with and who feel comfortable around you. This is akin to saying "I'm a man and I dislike chocolate. In fact none of my brothers, grandfathers, or any of my male friends or colleagues like chocolate therefore men dislike chocolate." Of course you associate with people who structure their lives in similar fashion to you and to the way you grew up -- to do so otherwise is a very uncomfortable feeling and it is very reasonable to want to be in a comfortable situation. That is not the same as using evidence or understanding reality especially for any universals. Your very claim that you have not made universal statements is false -- your comments about the breadwinner-homemaker mode and your very statements about feminism itself are worded as universal statements. Shall I quote some for you since you seem to forget what you've posted? If you wanted to be specific you could do so easily but using details and putting things into context but instead you use small examples and then try to stretch them to cover entire categories of people. This approach allows you make broad claims about feminism without proving any connection between it and the problem you see. What exactly are these "cases... where female equality has been over achieved"? How does one "over achieve" equality? Do you measure equality in small steps? How do you weigh one inequality with another? Do you even see any inequalities or do you feel that equality is impossible and therefore attempts to achieve automatically equate with over achieving by one side? And what is the venue in which equality or lack of it is measured? Legal, social, economic, religious, etc?

caitlyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 7:05:37 AM)
You have to admire the ability some people have, to make friends and influence others. I'm starting to notice a pattern with some of these very angry responses ... something to do with Napoleon. [;)]

cloudboy -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 7:19:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos 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. Hi everyone. I just thought I would step in here and translate, because sometimes Amayos tends to obfuscate. What he's really trying to say is that in the good ole days, Caitlyn would be going to a finishing school learning home-ec and horseback riding instead of studying history with pompous, self-important, I-know-it-all & I'm-better-than-you PhD ambitions. Down the road, the guy Caitlyn marries will be ironing his own shirts, cooking the meals, holding down a job, changing the babies diapers, car pooling kids to and fro, and telling his buddies "no, sorry, I can't play golf this weekend, I have too many honey-dos."

cloudboy -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 7:29:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new. Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement. When someone plays the "Hitler card" in a debate, its akin to turtle-on-its-back desperation. As for me, I would characterize Hitler as a poltical opportunist --- and you're right --- the patriotism-xenophobia-paranoia thing was an old trick. Thank God that rhetoric doesn't fool anyone any more..........

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 7:42:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new. Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement. exactly what were the followers of his antiseminism if not a social movement, part of what got him elected!

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 7:46:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new. Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement. When someone plays the "Hitler card" in a debate, its akin to turtle-on-its-back desperation. As for me, I would characterize Hitler as a poltical opportunist --- and you're right --- the patriotism-xenophobia-paranoia thing was an old trick. Thank God that rhetoric doesn't fool anyone any more.......... Oh, my goodness, this almost had me falling out of my chair with laughter, cloudboy. Then I almost started to cry because its so sad. Rhetoric's goal isn't the truth; it's to presuade people in the hopes of getting followers, money, power, and/or changes (and probably other things).

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 7:47:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new. Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement. When someone plays the "Hitler card" in a debate, its akin to turtle-on-its-back desperation. As for me, I would characterize Hitler as a poltical opportunist --- and you're right --- the patriotism-xenophobia-paranoia thing was an old trick. Thank God that rhetoric doesn't fool anyone any more.......... as is someone who summarily disqualifies it with the slogan "playing the xyz card", it goes hand in hand with those who have cried playing the race card when often times race was in fact an issue. same goes for your rhetoric

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 7:48:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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. Hilter didn't start a social movement or a political movement -- he was trained and learned from others who saw in him a potentially powerful and charismatic spokesperson for ideas that were not new. Social movements are movements because they involve groups of people -- a social idea could be created by one person but without followers or numbers there is no movement. exactly what were the followers of his antiseminism if not a social movement, part of what got him elected! He was chosen by others already part of a social movement to be the figure head and the charismatic spokesperson. He didn't create it! It had existed in Germany (and other parts of Europe) for centuries.

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 7:49:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Rhetoric's goal isn't the truth; it's to presuade people in the hopes of getting followers, money, power, and/or changes (and probably other things). sounds a lot like radical feminism to me i will put it like this. we can go round and round on this topic till hell freezes over and we will all end up right back where we started from. i truly do have better things to do than litigate item by item issues in an ongoing text war that will in the end only serve to give me raw fingers for my time. i think its best that we agree to disagree and leave it at that. now you all can type your fingers raw. i am off this topic its getting redundant

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 8:09:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Rhetoric's goal isn't the truth; it's to presuade people in the hopes of getting followers, money, power, and/or changes (and probably other things). sounds a lot like radical feminism to me Yes, rherotic is used by social movements and individuals to influence others all the time -- again, not specific to any one group or individual. But I want to point out that you've gotten a bit more specific in your attack. I recommend though looking into cultural and militant feminism if you want to find some really good material to use in your argument. I can make some reading suggestions and there are even a few legal cases you might want to consider. However, these are specific cases not universals. Universals are at best damned difficult to prove with human beings.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 8:48:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne exactly what were the followers of his antiseminism if not a social movement, part of what got him elected! To be discussing Hitler means this dicussion has taken a bizarre turn. Hitler rise depended on the democratic process but it wouldn't have happened if there was not wide spread resentment in Germany about the treaty of Versaille and France, Britain, USA, Italy and Japan wanting to finish Germany off as a power in Europe. Then you have to look at the reasons for German militarism in the first place and that was due to German principalities losing 30% of its population due to famine and war during the thirty years war and the feeling that it should never be allowed to happen again. Anti-semitism in Germany had reasons (that is not to say racism is rational or reasonable) and one needs to understand the psychology of why it happened to prevent it happening again. It is quite obvious with what happened in Germany that we are all capable of horrendous crimes and to think we aren't we are merely fooling ourselves. To paraphrase Chomsky, if you dress something up as fighting for democracy and freedom, you can make people do anything.

IndigoDadesi -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 9:11:22 AM)
If we're talking about hilter here I can only assume at some point it has to be linked to HIS contributions to feminism. After all he (ie. his party) did set up social programs to support young mothers and for their children. Of course it was only eligable to arian (sp.?) women and their children. Although (just guessing) he's not exactly the BEST example when talking about equality. Id probably go with someone like Charlotte Perkins Gilman....after all, she was a true equality-feminist. I say equality-feminist because she was actually fighting for equality, not superiority, not to beable to take advantage of the system.

gestapa05 -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/23/2006 9:46:47 AM)
I think she makes many valid observations [:)]"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." Friedrich Nietzsche

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875