RE: Is Elise Sutton right?

RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (Full Version)

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

Message

angelic -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 3:59:10 PM)
quote: There would be no tears or excuses proffered for the killer, and he would be just one more murderer sitting on Texas’ death row. The public would view the woman’s affair as a sad, desperate attempt to gain some comfort in the hellish life her brute of a husband had imposed on her. The mere mention of the fact that his wife had been cheating on him as an excuse for murder would be correctly denounced by feminists, who would also express outrage at the murderer’s "blame the victim" defense. Agreed... imho... 20 years for a (premediated?) murder with 10 years and possible parole IS a slap on the wrist... as you stated if it had been a male behind that wheel there would be zero chance he would have gotten 20 years... minimium would have been life...

Level -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 5:08:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy [The bias against men in such cases is based on the realities that men are more violent and regularly do beat up on and brutalize women. Good post, cloudboy. Food for thought, but the ones that would benefit the most don't care to hear it. As for your final sentence, I would suggest that yes, men are more violent, but the gap between male/female violence is not as wide as many believe. Almost no men report female violence; they are brought up to "take it like a man", they're called sissies if they speak about it, they are embarrased that it happens, the law does not take those claims as seriously....the media feeds this sort of thing....."comedies" where men are slapped or struck in the nuts garner big laughs.......and, as men are stronger, the violence they do results in more visible damage....a woman punching a man may not hurt much, physically, so don't be a pussy, dude........but violence is violence lol...... Ever wonder what percentage of femdomme profiles have a "male as worm" stance vs the percentage of male dom ones with a similar outlook on women? Anyway.........who wants to hear all this whining. Level "Truth is something outside yourself, something to be discovered, and not ... something you can make up as you go along." -------George Orwell

steffie -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 6:32:15 PM)
I've actually read Elise Sutton's book "Female Domination" and found it quite interesting. It was given to me by my Domme at the time to read, and I've since passed it along to another friend to read. I don't think i have to agree with everything an author writes to get something out of their work. Yes, Elise Sutton takes her female supremacy line to an extreme, but hey, I suppose that's her vision of reality. She is so deeply enmeshed in the belief that what she is doing is right in her relationship with her husband - that she's transposing it to all women. A common error in judgement. Still, I find a lot of what she has to say in her other chapters well worth reading. There is a section on how a submissive married man can get his vanilla wife interested in the D/s lifestyle. That section should be a "must read" for any guy that wants to smooze his wife into playing the role of his Domme. I also found her chapter on loving discipline quite good. On the other hand, i found her chapter on cuckolding a bit too much. Like anything, you read, and you make up your own mind what you can apply to your own life - and what you just throw away. steffie

caitlyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 7:47:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: Level As for "bashing feminism" and thus making oneself look "weak"..........I only "bash" that which deserves it. This is not weakness, weakness is laying like a whipped dog while hateful fools spew lies and attempt to destroy others. Agreed. There is quite often a dangerous silence that surrounds femisinformation. Those who point out its shortcomings so often are labeled as insensitive, intolerant—or in this case, apparently—"weak". Now, now ... let's not put words where they don't exist. Nobody labeled either of you was weak ... what I said is that it makes you look weak. I don't know either of you, so I really have no idea what you are. I will say that I stand by that statement. I think you are both (and many others to be fair) responding to the rhetoric of feminism, and not the reality of it. Under that guise, you are allowing yourself to feel threatened by "words without substance" ... hence, my comment about making yourself look weak. The reality of feminism, is that it has provided quite a bit of opportunity for women, and in this modern society where the vast majority of women must work to survive, perhaps that is a good thing. Just to reiterate, this was not a society of my choosing ... and once again, nobody has ever asked my opinion on how it should work. Given that reality, the challenge always does exist for the detractor male. What substantial thing has feminism taken from you ... that you do not have today, but feel that a person of your social standing would have had, if you lived before the advent of the feminist movement? Is there a right you are missing out on ... a possession you don't have ... a privalege that you are being denied? I'm curious ... I have asked this question many times, and only gotten abstract answers like, "I can't whistle as a woman on the street."

Tristan -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 8:27:01 PM)
Caitlyn, As to your question of what feminism has taken from men...feminism works one way and only one way. It is about expanding women's rights. It is not concerned about father's rights. Actually, it might be actively working against father's rights in support of mother's rights. It's also not concerned about men's rights. Take a look at roe v wade. A woman gets to chose if she gets an abortion, keeps the baby, or gives the baby up for adoption. The man has no choice. He pays child support if the woman keeps the child. He can not raise the child if the woman decides to have an abortion. He has an 18 year + commitment if the woman decides to keep the baby and he has no say in the decision. This is a life altering desicion for both parents, but only one gets to make the decision. I think that feminism also works against the education of boys. If there is any advantage that boys get in the education system, it is quickly denounced by the feminists. If girls are determined to get a better over all education, the feminists say nothing. We are now graduating 60%+ women from universities. The feminists say nothing even though it is their sons who are disadvantaged. Affirmative action as I understand it today means that if a white man and a woman or minority (or vietnam era veteran) are equally qualified for a job, that the woman or minority should get the job. I may be wrong about this, but this is my understanding. Most white men applying for a job today have not discriminated against anyone, and yet they have to be better than other applicants in order to get a job. I'm not sure that this is any different that what has happened to women and minorities in the past. Now, it's another group who did not participate in discrimination. I think many feel this is a form of discrimination. Many people see feminism as being one sided. I prefer to forget about gender roles and try to be fair. It would be nice to have a real discussion and have all sides heard. Tristan

MrDiscipline44 -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 8:37:24 PM)
It's my understanding that affirmative action has nothing to do with feminism. Though I doubt they would use it to their advantage if they can.

amayos -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 8:44:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Now, now ... let's not put words where they don't exist. The pot calling the kettle black here, I do think!

caitlyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 9:04:33 PM)
Thank you for the response Tristan ... On your first point, the purpose of feminism was to get equal rights for women ... rights that men already had. That it is one sided, is obvious ... there was no need to lobby for rights, for a group that already had them. I'm going to skip any commentary on reproductive issues, other than to say that I feel politics is a bigger culprit than feminism, or masculinism, or any other 'ism. Exactly what advantage would you like boys to get in school? I graduated from High School not that long ago, and 73 of the top 100 students were female. We all took the same classes. I just don't know what else to say. I now attend a university that is pretty damn hard to get into. I got in, because I worked hard and got good grades. The guys on the baseball team and the football players get a little help getting in. I don't mind the baseball players ... they won an NCAA title a few years ago ... but the football team didn't win shit last year ... but, they all got help getting in, and get tutors paid for by the athletic department. I didn't get a tutor. [;)] I can only speak for the schools I have attended. At my High School, the only way to make the boys more competitive with the girls, would have been to let them take classes in smoking pot, watchng WWF on TV, and skipping class to go hunting. [;)] Again, thanks for the response. [:D]

caitlyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 9:08:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos The pot calling the kettle black here, I do think! Does this roughly translate to, "I have no real response, so does anyone mind if I masterbate?" [;)]

amayos -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 9:27:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: amayos The pot calling the kettle black here, I do think! Does this roughly translate to, "I have no real response, so does anyone mind if I masterbate?" [;)] It actually translates to no soup for you.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 11:29:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Listening to the public and media reaction to the Harris case one would imagine that infidelity were a vice owned exclusively by the male of the human species. In reality, research estimates that for every five unfaithful husbands, there are four unfaithful wives. According to the American Association of Blood Banks, of the nearly 300,000 cases evaluated each year in the United States, roughly 30% exclude the tested individual as the biological father of the children he thought were his. Even blood typing examinations taken decades ago showed that at a bare minimum 10% of the fathers who signed their babies' birth certificates were unknowingly claiming paternity of children who weren't theirs. I read research that showed that to every two males that cheated on their partners, three females cheated on theirs and the most likely males to be cheated on where the dedicated father/family type that provided a stable home for the female partner because this allowed opportunity for the female. Opportunity is a key word in most cases of infidelity between the sexes. This behaviour of a female in an apparent stable relationship where she is well provided for is not restricted to humans either. That fact is there is an ongoing sexual war between males and females and that is all about getting the best partner possible for procreation and no matter how aloof we think we are from nature, the fact is we aren't. It appears the age old saying 'treat them mean and keep them keen' holds some truth.

amayos -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 11:48:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver ...and no matter how aloof we think we are from nature, the fact is we aren't. A very good point.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/19/2006 11:59:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn The reality of feminism, is that it has provided quite a bit of opportunity for women, and in this modern society where the vast majority of women must work to survive, perhaps that is a good thing. Just to reiterate, this was not a society of my choosing ... and once again, nobody has ever asked my opinion on how it should work. Feminism is about providing more for the affluent female and nothing to do with enhancing the life of poor females. Feminism was from the beginning driven by the false premise that females were shattles of men which was never true, except for the top 5% of society because this group held all the wealth and marriage was business and the signing of business deals. Poor women always had equal rights because in the part of society they inhabited there wasn't enough wealth to carry passengers. Many of the deals for 'women' nowadays are for affluent women as opposed to women in general. Maternity leave for example, you have to be able to afford the drop in income to be able to take it. Alimony, which to me is the biggest laugh of all, that a woman can demand that she be kept by a man she is divorcing when a woman has more chance of getting a job in today's society than a male! The mother will almost always get custody of children entirely through prejudice of the courts whether she is the better parent or not. The false belief that females aren't violent and that all violence is perpurtrated by males is another victory for feminism, though it is slowly being recognized that a significant amount of domestic violence is by females. Sexual molestation of children is now slowly being understood not to be an entirely male thing either. Feminism has largely been based on lies for the advancement of a particular section of female society. True there have been some trickle down but is this enough to carry on believing all the lies and false history put forward by feminists?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 12:13:36 AM)
What's a "shattle"? I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Feminism was from the beginning driven by the false premise that females were shattles of men which was never true, except for the top 5% of society because this group held all the wealth and marriage was business and the signing of business deals.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 12:23:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster What's a "shattle"? I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. Women were owned and ruled by men.

subtlesubie -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 1:46:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Exactly what advantage would you like boys to get in school? I graduated from High School not that long ago, and 73 of the top 100 students were female. We all took the same classes. I just don't know what else to say. I now attend a university that is pretty damn hard to get into. I got in, because I worked hard and got good grades. The issue is teaching, teacher training, and cirriculum development is dominated by women. Teaching styles have evolved to favour suits that females are strongest in. At the critical elementary level, so many boys from single parent (mother) homes respond brilliantly to male teachers, but there aren't any. Boys who need to socialize more, play games and generally exert themselves are forced to sit still and read quietly, and it doesn't take them long to realize that the education system has not been designed with thier needs in mind. Of course, theydon't put like that - they think f**k this, and by the time they get to high school, the enormous value of education is lost on them, and WWE and pot seem like good alternatives. It is easy for you to sit in at your ivy league school feeling ever so smart, but remember we are all in this together. You and your friends will be picking your boyfriends, lovers and husbands from that crop, and with so many duds, many of you are in for a bumpy ride.

cloudboy -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 1:51:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Feminism is about providing more for the affluent female and nothing to do with enhancing the life of poor females. Feminism was from the beginning driven by the false premise that females were shattles of men which was never true, except for the top 5% of society because this group held all the wealth and marriage was business and the signing of business deals. Poor women always had equal rights because in the part of society they inhabited there wasn't enough wealth to carry passengers. Many of the deals for 'women' nowadays are for affluent women as opposed to women in general. Maternity leave for example, you have to be able to afford the drop in income to be able to take it. Alimony, which to me is the biggest laugh of all, that a woman can demand that she be kept by a man she is divorcing when a woman has more chance of getting a job in today's society than a male! The mother will almost always get custody of children entirely through prejudice of the courts whether she is the better parent or not. The false belief that females aren't violent and that all violence is perpurtrated by males is another victory for feminism, though it is slowly being recognized that a significant amount of domestic violence is by females. Sexual molestation of children is now slowly being understood not to be an entirely male thing either. Feminism has largely been based on lies for the advancement of a particular section of female society. True there have been some trickle down but is this enough to carry on believing all the lies and false history put forward by feminists? Well, we can be sure of one thing, feminism has not provided women more seats on the Supreme Court. In general, without going point by point, I would say your post sounds like buffoonery to me. Take for example, "Poor women always had equal rights because in the part of society they inhabited there wasn't enough wealth to carry passengers." That's quite a closing sentence to your lead argument, what, are you trying to outdo Steven Colbert? In sum, your argument seems to be, "I don't like feminism." The only thing missing here is an irrational rant against Hillary Clinton.

cloudboy -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 1:59:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Does this roughly translate to, "I have no real response, so does anyone mind if I masterbate?" [;)] He has slaves to do that for him. In fact this whole time you've just been arguing with his correspondence and media relations slave who is PMSing right now.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 2:45:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Well, we can be sure of one thing, feminism has not provided women more seats on the Supreme Court. In general, without going point by point, I would say your post sounds like buffoonery to me. Take for example, "Poor women always had equal rights because in the part of society they inhabited there wasn't enough wealth to carry passengers." That's quite a closing sentence to your lead argument, what, are you trying to outdo Steven Colbert? In sum, your argument seems to be, "I don't like feminism." The only thing missing here is an irrational rant against Hillary Clinton. Read just about any feminist book you care to name and you will see nothing but a false history. The feminist version of history begins at the beginning of the 19th century, maybe a little before at the dawning of the industrial revolution and is associated with the property classes of the era which provides the feminist model of gender relationships. As for the supreme court the public faces of a political system are not the arbitors of the political system, the political class is and has remained intact in America since independence. Those entering the political class from below are the exception that proves the rule and public faces are not the power behind the political system. How many women with seats on the supreme court is only cosmetic and will rise and fall depending on what is necessary for public consumption. Though one has to accept Christian fundementalism plays a big part in forming the opinion of the American political class but that is a reflection of both sexes and not male dominated per se. Though my guess is that people like you really do believe you live in a democracy.

Level -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 3:25:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: Level As for "bashing feminism" and thus making oneself look "weak"..........I only "bash" that which deserves it. This is not weakness, weakness is laying like a whipped dog while hateful fools spew lies and attempt to destroy others. Agreed. There is quite often a dangerous silence that surrounds femisinformation. Those who point out its shortcomings so often are labeled as insensitive, intolerant—or in this case, apparently—"weak". Now, now ... let's not put words where they don't exist. Nobody labeled either of you was weak ... what I said is that it makes you look weak. I don't know either of you, so I really have no idea what you are. I will say that I stand by that statement. I think you are both (and many others to be fair) responding to the rhetoric of feminism, and not the reality of it. Under that guise, you are allowing yourself to feel threatened by "words without substance" ... hence, my comment about making yourself look weak. The reality of feminism, is that it has provided quite a bit of opportunity for women, and in this modern society where the vast majority of women must work to survive, perhaps that is a good thing. Just to reiterate, this was not a society of my choosing ... and once again, nobody has ever asked my opinion on how it should work. Given that reality, the challenge always does exist for the detractor male. What substantial thing has feminism taken from you ... that you do not have today, but feel that a person of your social standing would have had, if you lived before the advent of the feminist movement? Is there a right you are missing out on ... a possession you don't have ... a privalege that you are being denied? I'm curious ... I have asked this question many times, and only gotten abstract answers like, "I can't whistle as a woman on the street." I can only say I wholeheartedly disagree with even "looking weak". Those "words without substance" can have a hideous effect on some, put them with a weak mind and it bumps society backwards a bit. If you'll go back to the post which first brought up the "look weak" comment, you'll see I agreed with Tammy Jo that "not all feminists are like that".......I don't hate feminism. I hate stupidity, which some feminist have in abundance. It isn't a case of having anything "taken away" from me.....it's a matter of seeing people attacked without deserving it...."men are pigs" is no better than "blacks like watermelon" or "jews are money hungry" etc.... Level

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02