RE: Is Elise Sutton right?

RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (Full Version)

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

Message

Level -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 3:30:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos 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. LOL amayos.

Level -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 3:33:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy 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. LMAO cloudboy

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 3:39:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy In sum, your argument seems to be, "I don't like feminism." The only thing missing here is an irrational rant against Hillary Clinton. Since all men aren't equal and all women aren't equal, the idea that the genders are equal is a false premise. Hillary Clinton in the Whitehouse will do nothing for a black woman living in poverty in Alabama but it will do a lot for affluent women who invented and espouse feminist propaganda for their own benefit while saying it is for the advancement of all women. It clearly isn't, wasn't and never will be.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 3:53:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy 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? Look at the wealth distribution of American society, there in lies your answer. Feminism has not changed wealth distribution and was never meant to, it is about affluent women seeking power for themselves. Fair enough but let's not pretend it is anything to do with liberating poor women, god forbid poor men from penuary. In fact many feminist policies that have been adopted by the political classes have destroyed the cohesiveness of many poorer communities. This is not to say feminist policy is the only policy to have done this, that would be nonsense but the notion of dividing of society up into competing genders is destructive because it isn't genders that should be competing but a social group or community insisting on their having a fair opportunity at sharing national wealth.

Real0ne -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 6:02:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Look at the wealth distribution of American society, there in lies your answer. Feminism has not changed wealth distribution and was never meant to, it is about affluent women seeking power for themselves and women as w whole as compared to if these issues were handled differently with a little finesse. you make excellent points MC. In a word a very small micro minority of women in this country called feminists really screwed themselves as and most other women too in the big picture and did more damage to this society than good by a long shot. My mother was 40ish in those days and she was livid at the feminists who presented themselves as speaking for "all" women. In her words "they are nothing but a bunch of spoiled cry babies who dont know anything about life, and they think they can speak for me and everybody else" now those of you in your 20's, 30's, and 40's would be to young to have experienced the attitutes back then so you can only relate to life as it is today but life back then was way more romantic and passionate than it is now. todays standards are much more mechanical and akin to cold steel. i could literally go on for pages on this subject since my mother bitched about it at least once a week at the dinner table, so i will cut it off here and you can take it for what it is or isnt.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 6:11:50 AM)
I just don't see a need for a feminist movement anymore. What rights are being denied? Is it the income difference. If that is the case it makes perfect sense that it will always exists. As many women take large amounts of time off work, while pregnant, raising kids, etc.. Not because they have to or are forced to, but because they want to. Well, obviously if one does that you will sacrifice some career time, that could have meant a raise or promotion. So, it makes perfect sense that those spending the most time in the workforce, non-stop would rise in the coporate ladder at a faster rate. Is that fair? Well, it depends if you are looking at it from a business perspective or a personal perspective. Business wise it makes perfect sense. But that factor is more that offset in my mind anyway, by the mans absolute lack of rights concerning reproduction. So, women in general will suffer in there career(as most at some point will select to have children and some of those will take a extended time off to be with there children, much moreso than men do), and men will suffer because they have no rights whether there children are born or not. It seems to equal out to me. For the life of me I can't see any other widespread gender bias that would warrant a feminist movement.

Jasmyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 6:49:00 AM)
There are bigger things at stake than the idea of western feminism and how it equates soley to westernised countries... feminism still has a place on a global level when it fights for the rights of all women, not just western ones...so I will agree to disagree with you when you state feminism has had it's day.

caitlyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 6:55:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou I just don't see a need for a feminist movement anymore. What rights are being denied? I agree with this statement 100% and commend you on a very good post. The feminist movement really has no place in today's society. There are no rights being denied to women, and there are no rights being denied to men. You hit my point dead on. All that is left within the feminist movement, is hangers-on groups looking to promote their own agenda. You also see a lot of people, of both sexes, that think they are entitled to something ... and feel the need to find an enemy to blame because they don't have it.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 6:56:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn There are bigger things at stake than the idea of western feminism and how it equates soley to westernised countries... feminism still has a place on a global level when it fights for the rights of all women, not just western ones...so I will agree to disagree with you when you state feminism has had it's day. But isn't this making the assumption that we in the west know what is best for everyone else?

cloudboy -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 7:14:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn The feminist movement Alright, I just have to ask, what is "the feminist movement?"

caitlyn -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 7:29:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboyquote] Alright, I just have to ask, what is "the feminist movement?" A generic term, used to keep from having to write a two-hundred paragraph history in each post, outlining specific issues.

MrDiscipline44 -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 7:35:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn There are bigger things at stake than the idea of western feminism and how it equates soley to westernised countries... feminism still has a place on a global level when it fights for the rights of all women, not just western ones...so I will agree to disagree with you when you state feminism has had it's day. I disagree with this whole heartedly. Feminism started in the United States, pertains only to the United States and it should die in the United States. Why give other countries one more reason to hate us?

amayos -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 9:37:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Alright, I just have to ask, what is "the feminist movement?" An admittedly more subtle yet arguably more persuasive and numerous faction of mindset than the first, the supporters of which constitute radical liberal politicians and their well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning supporters, more than one college curriculum which has often taken on the role of disseminating doctrine and intellectual propaganda on behalf of the aforementioned political body (in the name of equality and 'well-roundedness'), the massive Hollywood and entertainment media femisinformation influence seen virtually everywhere which repeatedly enforces a women rule, men drool satirical—and sometimes not so satirical—content, and (my personal favorite) heady, smarmy intellectuals who contain a ponderous bias in support of liberal feminist politics yet often pretend to pursue "fairness" and "balance" in literary, radio, television or internet-based discourse. For examples on that last point cloudboy, take a look in the mirror. [;)]

Lordandmaster -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 10:43:58 AM)
Just who are these "affluent women"? Feminists--that is, the ones who have published--tend to come from the middle class, and they tend to be academics. They're hardly wives of CEO's and Daughters of the Revolution. Anyway, your brush is so broad that there's not much point to this conversation. I really doubt you've read very much feminist literature. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Look at the wealth distribution of American society, there in lies your answer. Feminism has not changed wealth distribution and was never meant to, it is about affluent women seeking power for themselves.

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 10:56:54 AM)
This is not a post to start a discussion. This is a post for thought, to hopefully get someone thinking out there who reads it. I won't respond to anyone who replies to this post because it is for you yourself to consider, to think about inside, not to defend or attack, just to think about. I have to wonder why people get so angry about feminism... It makes as much sense to me as people getting angry about the civil rights movements or the gay movements or other social movements. In general I note that such anger seems tied to fear -- fear of change, fear of losing one's sense of self-worth. fear of losing power, fear of losing one's identity. If this were an America where women were give the same treatment and opportunities as men then I'd agree that feminism is no longer useful and it would, in all likelihood, die out. Women aren't threatened with being drafted into the military. Men aren't threatened with having their intimate and physical selves controled by the government in the name of an unborn child. (men can be forced to give money for an unwanted child's care but so can the woman unless she abandons it or gives it up for adoption) Men and women are not victims of crimes at the same rates. Boys are still taught that their best role is that of money-maker while girls are taught it is that of mother. We still live in a world where two people doing the same activities can be paid differently simply but giving their job different titles. We still live in a world where men are told its effeminiate to wear a dress but women can wear jeans and no make-up (though they might get called "feminists" or "lesbo"). So what is everyone afraid of? Are you afraid that men might become more controled and more limited, that women might be given more responsiblities as well as choices? Or are you afraid that everything will just become more violent and more competitive? Or is it fear of losing your "specialness"? When someone who isn't white wants more opportunities and more choices -- how does that threaten me? When someone who isn't het wants more rights and freedoms -- how does that threaten me? Why then do you feel threatened if some woman or some man wants to be treated as a person first not as their sex? Do those who hate feminism (or some form of feminism) and spout off angry sentences and notes also feel that gay and race attacks should be allowed on this board? Why is all right to attack feminism but it wouldn't be all right to attack gays rights activists or hispanic activists or jewish activists for instance? I see a lot of attacks againsts feminism or some idea of what feminism is on this board yet I do not see similar attacks against other social movements or other groups with such anger and regularity. (I have seen a few political attacks and some religious attacks but with far less frequency it seems) I should think that a group of people who themselves can be attacked for their desires and their choices, would be more careful about spreading anger around.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 11:05:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Just who are these "affluent women"? Feminists--that is, the ones who have published--tend to come from the middle class, and they tend to be academics. They're hardly wives of CEO's and Daughters of the Revolution. Anyway, your brush is so broad that there's not much point to this conversation. I really doubt you've read very much feminist literature. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Look at the wealth distribution of American society, there in lies your answer. Feminism has not changed wealth distribution and was never meant to, it is about affluent women seeking power for themselves. Actually I have read a lot of feminist theory and philosophy and of course 'they' wouldn't be wives and daughters of CEOs, what do they need feminism for when they have so much money, that is unless they have political ambitions themselves. Feminism is about extending the power of a certain class of woman which is my point and not women in general. Actually, read Catherine A MacKinnon, , she is a conundrum in herself. Talk about theory that disappears up its own egotistical ass!

amayos -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 11:38:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I have to wonder why people get so angry about feminism... Well, to start, I addressed this dissent partially in this link: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=297862 quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo It makes as much sense to me as people getting angry about the civil rights movements or the gay movements or other social movements. In general I note that such anger seems tied to fear -- fear of change, fear of losing one's sense of self-worth. fear of losing power, fear of losing one's identity. True. Often it can very well be tied to fear. Many conservative right-wing christian fundamentalists might fit this example, but not all who disagree with many of the veiled modern-day drives of feminism are "afraid" or "weak". It would be important to note that many of the first generation feminists who actually fought for and won real, tangible things for women in this country—like the women's suffrage effort—did so against similarly lodged accusations. Some simply see the balancing act degenerating and tipping another way. quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo If this were an America where women were give the same treatment and opportunities as men then I'd agree that feminism is no longer useful and it would, in all likelihood, die out. Women aren't threatened with being drafted into the military. Men aren't threatened with having their intimate and physical selves controled by the government in the name of an unborn child. (men can be forced to give money for an unwanted child's care but so can the woman unless she abandons it or gives it up for adoption) Men and women are not victims of crimes at the same rates. Boys are still taught that their best role is that of money-maker while girls are taught it is that of mother. We still live in a world where two people doing the same activities can be paid differently simply but giving their job different titles. We still live in a world where men are told its effeminiate to wear a dress but women can wear jeans and... ...I should think that a group of people who themselves can be attacked for their desires and their choices, would be more careful about spreading anger around. I feel you have a few valid points in the above, but again, I must reiterate that the idea of articulated criticism or disagreement against feminism be equated automatically to "blind, unjust anger and hatred and just plain meanness" is dishonest and reveals a mindset not in pursuit of a two-way conversation on the topic. Hence, yet another reason why some do not agree with feminist programming.

Takethiswaltz -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 12:47:11 PM)
[quote]ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Since all men aren't equal and all women aren't equal, the idea that the genders are equal is a false premise. Hillary Clinton in the Whitehouse will do nothing for a black woman living in poverty in Alabama but it will do a lot for affluent women who invented and espouse feminist propaganda for their own benefit while saying it is for the advancement of all women. It clearly isn't, wasn't and never will be [/quote] Meatcleaver, In response to your staement re: feminism and who it works for, I would like to share a personal story. I grew up in a lower middle class family, scored very high on math and science achievement testings, but was still encouraged to pursue the traditional carreers of nursing and teaching. Instead I married into a relatively affluent family and my husband was a new attorney. Shortly after my daughter was born, we divorced, and I found myself at the poverty level, as I didnt have the funds to fight my attorney husband and the judge that awarded me $40 per week in child support, as my husband was just starting his practice. I worked for $5.75/hr and paid $100/week in child care. I realized that the only way out of this life of poverty was to remarry or educate myself. I chose the latter. When i entered college, I applied for every scholarship and grant i could get my hands on. Several of the scholarships were funded by foundations formed to assist single mothers in pursuit of a college eduactaion. Other grants existed to assist women who had no specific job training and needed to enter the workforce. I recieved assistance with housing, child care, and books. i was even able to purchase my own car. The board of directors on these foundations consisted of older, affluent women who chose to to share their time and fund-raising skills in an effort to help those less fortunate than themselves. The "ideals" of feminism existed in the motivation for forming these programs, and I benefitted from them greatly. Fortunately, my timing was perfect, as many of these programs no longer exist. Many of the woman today in my former situation no longer have the options i had to fall back on ( at least in Massachusetts) and are forced to remarry or cohabitate in an effort to raise the standard of living for themselves and their children. Bad reasons, one must admit. I applaud anyone that has the courage to initiate their own personal reveolution against the staus quo, as i benefitted geatly from feminism at it's best. There is always the slippery slope of falling into an extremist point of view, and thats where the damage to the cause originates from. Is Elise Sutton right? Who knows. She has gone down thatslippery slope.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 12:49:07 PM)
Which "class of woman"? First you implied that you were talking about upper-class women; now you're denying that. So do you mean middle-class women? Upper middle-class women? Lower upper-class women? Taking Catharine MacKinnon as representative of "feminism" is ludicrous. That would be like taking some half-crazed sexual predator and using him as an example of BDSM. Have ya read Martha Nussbaum? Jane Gallop? I will say one thing in defense of the feminism-phobes: some feminists have said gratuitous and untenable things about sexual relations and men's roles in society. (Andrea Dworkin, who has come up a few times on the boards, is a good example.) Those kinds of position are obviously not likely to win many devotees among men. But it's also very narrow-minded--I would say disingenuously so--to take the lunatic fringe of feminism and pretend that this is all feminism has to offer. Anyone who believes we had a fair society before the 1960's is looking at the past with rose-colored glasses; if we have indeed reached the point today where women are not denied opportunities because they are women, the feminist movement has had a lot to do with it. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Actually I have read a lot of feminist theory and philosophy and of course 'they' wouldn't be wives and daughters of CEOs, what do they need feminism for when they have so much money, that is unless they have political ambitions themselves. Feminism is about extending the power of a certain class of woman which is my point and not women in general.

meatcleaver -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (3/20/2006 12:58:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Which "class of woman"? First you implied that you were talking about upper-class women; now you're denying that. So do you mean middle-class women? Upper middle-class women? Lower upper-class women? Taking Catharine MacKinnon as representative of "feminism" is ludicrous. That would be like taking some half-crazed sexual predator and using him as an example of BDSM. Have ya read Martha Nussbaum? Jane Gallop? I will say one thing in defense of the feminism-phobes: some feminists have said gratuitous and untenable things about sexual relations and men's roles in society. (Andrea Dworkin, who has come up a few times on the boards, is a good example.) Those kinds of position are obviously not likely to win many devotees among men. But it's also very narrow-minded--I would say disingenuously so--to take the lunatic fringe of feminism and pretend that this is all feminism has to offer. Anyone who believes we had a fair society before the 1960's is looking at the past with rose-colored glasses; if we have indeed reached the point today where women are not denied opportunities because they are women, the feminist movement has had a lot to do with it. One could write a thesis but no one is going to read a thesis on a thread but to try to be concise, politics tends to be based on selfish interest and like any political theory so is feminism and those women that espouse feminism tend to be interested in their own interests and not the interests in women in general or interested in the interests of women in general as long as it suits their own interests. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, selfish interest motivates the majority of us but to put a veneer of idealistic sisterhood on it and putting themselves on a pedestal as though they believe in some higher cause, well nooo!

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875