RE: In an effort to help Nicky out

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: In an effort to help Nicky out

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 2:59:07 AM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

Is it okay to paint most or MRAs with the same brush?

It is if those MRAs subscribe to that version of men's rights activism that has it that a) feminism is the reason behind the major ills that men, especially, suffer and b) the solution - insofar as such MRAs even *have* a solution - is to bash feminism as much as they possibly can. You're very clearly an advocate (and a proud one, at that) of that version of men's rights activism.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to respectmen)

Post #: 41

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 5:38:05 AM

Kaliko

Posts: 3381
Joined: 9/25/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Is it okay to paint most or MRAs with the same brush?

It is if those MRAs subscribe to that version of men's rights activism that has it that a) feminism is the reason behind the major ills that men, especially, suffer and b) the solution - insofar as such MRAs even *have* a solution - is to bash feminism as much as they possibly can. You're very clearly an advocate (and a proud one, at that) of that version of men's rights activism.

When I read about men's rights, I see that they are voicing objection to being overlooked or treated unequally in parallel with feminism, not necessarily because of it. They feel that women's rights have overtaken men's rights. Maybe it's just a perspective thing, but I see a slight difference there. I don't get the impression that they want things to return to the state of years ago, but that they recognize the need to be more attentive now to where feminism went too far. Some of them are vocal and always on the offensive, sure. Just as some feminists are. If I'm not allowed to judge all feminists by that froth at the mouth fringe group, then surely we shouldn't be judging men's rights activists in the same manner. That is hardly equality.

quote:

I know this is going to be a waste of time, but here goes, anyway:

How would you distinguish those two categories, Nick? Given what characteristics, exactly, does 'a woman' become 'a feminist'?

I agree that it's a waste of time if your argument is that because a woman lives in a society which earlier feminists have impacted, she is thereby a feminist. Do I have that incorrect?

Curious...is there truth to the three waves of feminism? If so, and we are currently experiencing third-wave feminism, can't someone be opposed to third-wave feminism without wanting to undo all equal rights?

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Post #: 42

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 7:30:25 AM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
When I read about men's rights, I see that they are voicing objection to being overlooked or treated unequally in parallel with feminism, not necessarily because of it. They feel that women's rights have overtaken men's rights. Maybe it's just a perspective thing, but I see a slight difference there. I don't get the impression that they want things to return to the state of years ago, but that they recognize the need to be more attentive now to where feminism went too far. Some of them are vocal and always on the offensive, sure. Just as some feminists are. If I'm not allowed to judge all feminists by that froth at the mouth fringe group, then surely we shouldn't be judging men's rights activists in the same manner. That is hardly equality.

At one time, the men's rights issue wasn't anywhere near as colonised by the kind of MRA that Nick supports now. In the early days there was a strong current that felt that there wasn't a zero sum game in which any gain for women was a loss for men. Sexism was a double-edge sword: it had its negative effects on both women *and* men. One of the most historically key issues was that of conscription: as a male, you could be plucked out from the life you had at age 18, and sent off to risk your life. Pretty clearly, it wasn't feminists who were doing this, it was the powers that be.

Obviously, conscription of men in wartime now feels like a redundant thing, these days. Yet the culture that produced that still exists. It's a culture that, for me, assumes that males are expected to live in a colder and more competitive world than do females. One upshot, for me, is the assumption (widely true, though still sad, for me) that they while they 'naturally' want to bonk a lot, they also 'naturally' want way less of a relationship with their kids.

I'll give a little personal example. When I was a kid, age 11 to 13, I was at a mixed school. At register-time, the teachers would read out the boys' surnames first, then read out the girls' forenames. That always stung me - it felt like affection was there for girls but not for boys. I mentioned it to a female friend - a self-avowed feminist - years later at uni. She said, 'Ah, to me, it would have grated that the boys' names were called out first. Also, that girls were treated like infants - fluffily, as though they were there to have their heads patted and not part of the hard and fighty world that boys were living in'.

Yep - that conversation and my feminist female friend was an epiphany for me. The sexism that impacted on women and the sexism that impacted on men were two sides of the same coin. Males had their own fight which entailed different strategies to those of females. But males and females were essentially on the same side and the enemy was the class teacher ... and, later, authority and the establishment in general. Also, for men, as well as for women, there was an internal battle to fight - though again it was of a different nature to the internal battle that women had to fight.

The feelings I had were burgeoning amongst adults, too. The modern men's rights movement grew up, in the late 1970s, as a result of the study of feminist ideas and feminist politics. It was recognised that while men had the institutional power, there were all kinds of undesirable results to being male that needed to be addressed - undesirable results that came precisely as a result of our having that power and status. We might all want to be James Bonds or a Jason Bournes, but in reality both JBs have miserable, cold - and usually short - lives. Their partnerships don't last and while they get to screw a lot, they never, ever have kids. Or kids that they know about .... Sometimes I wonder how many males fantasise now about going whole hog - forget aspiring to be a JB, instead aspire to be a Terminator - superpowerful, and now *completely* devoid of all feeling.

After that first wave of the men's movement, one camp - now the dominant camp, at least when one thinks of Men's Rights Activism - split off and became anti-feminist. It's this group that Nick clearly belongs to. For me, this is disastrous, in two ways. Firstly, feminists aren't the enemy. Not real ones - the ones I've met and known - who do utterly subscribe to the notion of equality. These have been allies to me and to males I've known. It does no good at all for men to harm their cause. Secondly, even if feminists were the way Nick, for example, portrays them - what is the *point* in fighting them? It isn't feminists who can give Nick and his cohorts what they want, because it's not theirs to give. You don't pick a fight with your mother, sisters and wife to stop your government packing you off to get killed in war. They generally don't want you to go and get killed either. You fight the government.

quote:

I know this is going to be a waste of time, but here goes, anyway:

How would you distinguish those two categories, Nick? Given what characteristics, exactly, does 'a woman' become 'a feminist'?

quote:

I agree that it's a waste of time if your argument is that because a woman lives in a society which earlier feminists have impacted, she is thereby a feminist. Do I have that incorrect?

It's a waste of time because Nick does not and will not define 'feminist' or 'feminism'. 'Feminism is what feminists do' is what he always says, without apparently ever seeing the gaping hole in the logic of it. If a woman subscribes to the principle of equality of the sexes, then she subscribes to the fundamental principle of feminism.

quote:

Curious...is there truth to the three waves of feminism? If so, and we are currently experiencing third-wave feminism, can't someone be opposed to third-wave feminism without wanting to undo all equal rights?

'The three waves of feminism' is so entrenched a notion that it's hard to deny it. But the 'three waves' involved aren't chronological stages in which one wave supplants the wave that happened before it (though obviously some issues - like that of votes for women in one's own country, become redundant). You don't have to be a 'third wave feminist' to be a feminist. During the third wave feminism has gone in all sorts of directions. I think it's perfectly possible to disapprove of one or more of those directions, while holding to the principle of equality.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to Kaliko)

Post #: 43

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 9:28:58 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
At first, I thought the premise was "letters from beyond the grave". I would do that. Shoot! I have that kind of place in thing now.

It is. Overall plot premise is that loving husband dies and writes timed delayed letters to help guide her back to a healthy life. It was supposed to be a sweet love story. It was obvioulsy perceived that way by the vast majority of viewers since it had the highest possible rating on netflix.

Carol's commentary: Had she watched the movie alone without me pointing stuff out she would've downplayed my concern. In her own words she would've been exactly like a man in the 60's saying to a feminist, "Oh come on babe! I just commented that you have a nice ass. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Come on, Jeff. You've known me for years. Do you think MP *doesn't* put up with my crap?
Everyone in a long term relationship puts up with crap. The question is "what kind of crap and where are the boundaries?" I wouldn't even count "Honey I want my hair done as 'crap' in this context." At most that'd rise to the level of annoying.

No, I am not easy to live with, but I've never been emotionally abusive to MP. (Neither has he to me.)
*phew* :) More seriously though, I should hope not. That's the question here. Do people see this film as emotionally & physically abusive? Would they see it that way if the genders were reversed?

In my current day, I can only think of two circumstances where I would physically (non-consensually) strike him. If he were harming me, and I had to use physical force to get past him to get through the door, I would. (Not proud of it, but I'd do it.) The other is stupid, but the day I get the call about my father's passing, I know I'm going into "don't touch me" mode.
Good. Now... let's assume you starting throwing plates and whatnot at him and he labeled that physical abuse. Would you think he was making a mountain out of a molehill and he should man-up? If a man did the same to a woman? I'm perfectly willing to give most anyone a pass for "family member just died" along with a handful of other obviously traumatic moments in life. But when such strategies become primary strategies then we are into the lands of abusive relationship.

I do this, in a sense [storm off without a word in a fit]
I agree that sometimes it is better to shut up. But at least for me, I absolutely expect Carol and myself to have enough internal discipline and control to at least get a one word topic out and a time tomorrow to discuss in earnest. Anything less than that would constitute a startling lack of self control in our marriage. It does occur to me though, that I'm in a venue where it's commonplace for a "master" to use the silent treatment to punish a "slave". I've always thought that was lunacy and it's equal lunacy in any other relationship interaction. But that is quite obviously a semi-acceptable strategy here. The problem is, I'm not a slave or even particularly submissive. So Carol would just get progressively more hurt if I did it to her. I'd put an end to it more abruptly for both our sake's.

Carol's Commentary: She agrees that there has never been a point in our marriage, no matter how angry, when either she or I would not have been able to play fair. In fact, she glossed right over the whole "She's angry" part and thought of entirely in the frame of "playing fair".

If it were me, I wouldn't be asking for a "positive" reaction.
Then if you were with me, you'd get the negative one and then you wouldn't be with me. There's a reason I look at Carol the way that I do and a very large part of that is that she doesn't do this stuff.

And, you wouldn't be so negative about Carol, either.
You are very mistaken. Remember in my head that I am absolutely labeling this as abusive behavior. How much behavior from MrP would you put up with if you had decidedly labeled it as abusive? I do love Carol a great deal. Leaving her would absolutely cut out a large part of my soul. I do, however, have boundaries anyway and would do what I needed to do to retain my own mental health. I don't make a very good victim. I have said all the way along that I find the concept of a spanking as boundary enforcement to be laughable. If something is unacceptable in a relationship then it is unacceptable and it must change or the relationship must end.

Carol's Response: These situations are outlandish in our relationship and would never happen. But she was pretty certain that she'd run into boundaries on that play. In my life, there is only one way to enforce a boundary in a marriage.

If something (horrible) happened, and she was formulating her thoughts, you might not LIkE it, be happy about it, etc. But, that's your WIFE. I've seen the way you look at her. It would be something you worked on.
As I mentioned above, if something horrible happened you are right. I get it that all of us have breaking points. That was the rub. NOTHING horrible had happened. This was, in the end, a tiny little altercation in life not "my son died". I had to assume this was how she frequently treated him.

Recently, I attempted to open a thread about "restorative justice". We're not together on this. That "apology" just ain't an apology in some cases.
I have watched two shows and read at least one article on restorative justice. I have NEVER seen anything even remotely like this. The accused understands their crime. The entire point of RJ is that it gets everyone back on-team and on the same page. Point me to the show/article where they drag some bewildered person into a surprise "court" and all stare at him accusingly without saying a word. The accused begs to know what the crime was and is clearly out to sea 100%. That is diametrically opposed to anything like restorative justice.

The furthest I could go in that situation truthfully is, "I"m sorry you're hurt Bun." But without knowing anything further about what the hell is going on, beyond that is a lie. How can I know if I'm sorry about whatever it is if I don't even know it? Besides the lie angle though, there is the [non-consensual] demand to obey. I'm simply not that submissive. In such a situation, the silent party is punishing the other party and demanding that the other party jump through hoops for them in order to stop the punishment. I have better ways to stop the punishment.

< Message edited by JeffBC -- 9/10/2016 9:29:04 AM >

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 44

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 9:41:25 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen
When a woman constantly criticises the men's rights movement, is she also brushing all men with the same brush? Is it okay to paint most or MRAs with the same brush? Last time I checked, it is. So it shouldn't be any different for feminists.

I agree and I also agree that MRA gets painted with that brush all too frequently. It's a shit play and deserves to be called out. "They do it too" is the cry of the weak and pathetic however... a cry you'll hear constantly on this very board. I'd like to point out that I consider myself both an MRA and a feminist. I don't use either label because I prefer not to use those broad brushes. If you ask me about a specific issue I'll tell you what I think. If you ask me if I'm a feminist or an MRA I'll say "Depends on what you mean by that". In real life I think of myself as a humanist. I know the end-state that I want and that is equality and maximum access to opportunity for all. My views are not gender dependent.

I have zero patience with anyone who wants to make a battle between the two halves of the human race. That is such obvious lunacy on the face of it that such people draw only my contempt. I would prefer to heal the wounds of patriarchy not ignore them or just swap over to matriarchy.

As an interesting aside, if you look historically (real history rather than made-up crap by feminist revisionists or MRA wishful thinkers), what you see is that the state which opposes patriarchy is not matriarchy. It's equality. In the deep past, equality was the norm. Abundance and warfare changed that. At various times there's been stronger and weaker opposition to the reduction of women to property. But in their strongest moments, equality was what they were seeking and got, not matriarchy.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to respectmen)

Post #: 45

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 9:47:47 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
I have never thrown anything at any man I got angry with that's for sure. I don't believe in any form of violence. And if a man ever threw anything at me, it's over. Well, if a man ever raise his voice at me, it's over. I don't raise my voice at him, he does not get to raise his voice at me. I just don't want that type of aggressive relationship. When I am mad, I keep quiet and time out from him, until I calm down. I don't talk to him until I calm down.

I heartily approve (lol, fwiw). I also have no time or tolerance for adversarial relationships. I expect a team effort. The very last thing I need in the entire world is my enemy sleeping in my bed.

quote:

Yes a man shouldn't apologize until he finds out what the problem is, and IF it deserves an apology. No point apologizing for what you don't know you did wrong. And a woman can stomp away in anger and get a time out, but eventually, when she calms down, she should explain to him in a calm manner what happened and talk about it calmly.

And were you and I together, if you managed to reasonably gracefully bide your time then you wouldn't be emotionally assaulting me and I'd be happy to give you that time... within limits of course. This character, however, was absolutely making a huge scene out of it. So in my mind, she started it... it's now on her to (in Carol's words) play fair. If she can't do that, then she is a child and not someone suitable to be my life partner.

The real bottom line is that if I did pretty much anything which left Carol both terrified and confused then I would feel honor-bound to suck it up, dig deep, and muster whatever it took to stop that. It's the combination of "terrified and confused" that turns this into gaslighting.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to Greta75)

Post #: 46

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 10:06:12 AM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

Awesome post Peon!

I vaguely knew that but didn't have the history to solidify it in my head. The zero-sum game part rings particularly true to me. In the microcosm, I can see no advantage to me winning while Carol loses unless my win is large and her loss is small. I'm generally looking for how the team wins, not how I or she wins. Even when one of us "sucks it up for the team" that's still done in the team context rather than one lost and the other won.

I remember those origins of MRA although I was only peripherally aware of them. I wondered where it all turned into anti-feminist.

It is as you say, even were all of Nick's deepest fears true, there would be no way to win by declaring war on 50% of the human population. Even if I decided I needed to use my privileged institutional power position to somehow curtail some activity of feminism, I would understand that the goals remained the same and that action was, at best, a delaying action while we get back to fixing the real problems. Under no circumstances would I ever be willing to declare equality my enemy and under no circumstances would I willingly return to the state of women as legal chattel.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Post #: 47

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 12:13:15 PM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

Thanks for the vote of support Jeff :)

quote:

I remember those origins of MRA although I was only peripherally aware of them. I wondered where it all turned into anti-feminist

.

A lot of people here were at school or just about to leave at the time, as was I. I think the main thing is that new movements just get colonised by the right and the left - and this particular one was colonised more by the right. From then on, the usual Right/Left dynamics apply: the 'enemy' is not going to be people at the top, it's going to be a section of those at the bottom.

quote:

It is as you say, even were all of Nick's deepest fears true, there would be no way to win by declaring war on 50% of the human population. Even if I decided I needed to use my privileged institutional power position to somehow curtail some activity of feminism, I would understand that the goals remained the same and that action was, at best, a delaying action while we get back to fixing the real problems. Under no circumstances would I ever be willing to declare equality my enemy and under no circumstances would I willingly return to the state of women as legal chattel.

True about that '50%'. But not if it's way less than 50%. You have to diminish your enemy by dividing it - preferably into groups that hate each other rather than, the (hypothetical) ruler. 'Divide and conquer' is the key and time-honoured strategy here. You have to make the majority feel that if they buy into a part of a belief, they buy into all of it, including the far out and nutty stuff. Ever since the suffragettes this strategy of divide and rule has been employed, and vigorously, against women. Those early feminists were portrayed as ugly, lunatic, man-hating harridans - just as are feminists today. This goes quite a long way to explaining why so many women - and men - completely accept the principle of equality of the sexes, but shrink in suspicion or even horror at the thought of calling themselves as 'feminists'.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to JeffBC)

Post #: 48

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 2:28:52 PM

LadyPact

Posts: 32566
Status: offline

Watch me totally screw up the quote function here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
At first, I thought the premise was "letters from beyond the grave". I would do that. Shoot! I have that kind of place in thing now.

It is. Overall plot premise is that loving husband dies and writes timed delayed letters to help guide her back to a healthy life. It was supposed to be a sweet love story. It was obvioulsy perceived that way by the vast majority of viewers since it had the highest possible rating on netflix.

I'd absolutely write one. It's really not that uncommon for people to put some kind of 'final message to my family' type thing in their will, etc. Nothing extreme, but a last final message of "thank you for loving me in my life" or "I always loved you, too".

quote:

Carol's commentary: Had she watched the movie alone without me pointing stuff out she would've downplayed my concern. In her own words she would've been exactly like a man in the 60's saying to a feminist, "Oh come on babe! I just commented that you have a nice ass. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't think I can address this. Telling somebody "nice ass" just doesn't compare to the devastation of losing a spouse of roughly a decade.

quote:

Come on, Jeff. You've known me for years. Do you think MP *doesn't* put up with my crap?
Everyone in a long term relationship puts up with crap. The question is "what kind of crap and where are the boundaries?" I wouldn't even count "Honey I want my hair done as 'crap' in this context." At most that'd rise to the level of annoying.

Yeah. Just wait until you're the guy sniffing the effects of "Color by Clairol" because your wife thinks fourteen bucks for the cheap box is better than spending a hundred every month at the hair salon. The "nice" term for it is "frugal".

quote:

No, I am not easy to live with, but I've never been emotionally abusive to MP. (Neither has he to me.)
*phew* :) More seriously though, I should hope not. That's the question here. Do people see this film as emotionally & physically abusive? Would they see it that way if the genders were reversed?

As being a person who has not seen the film, I believe I am unqualified to answer.

quote:

In my current day, I can only think of two circumstances where I would physically (non-consensually) strike him. If he were harming me, and I had to use physical force to get past him to get through the door, I would. (Not proud of it, but I'd do it.) The other is stupid, but the day I get the call about my father's passing, I know I'm going into "don't touch me" mode.
Good. Now... let's assume you starting throwing plates and whatnot at him and he labeled that physical abuse. Would you think he was making a mountain out of a molehill and he should man-up? If a man did the same to a woman? I'm perfectly willing to give most anyone a pass for "family member just died" along with a handful of other obviously traumatic moments in life. But when such strategies become primary strategies then we are into the lands of abusive relationship.

If I actually cracked him in the head by throwing a plate? Hell, I'd EXPECT at least a half a dozen people that we know to take me by the elbow, say, "come on LP, we're taking you out of the house".

quote:

I do this, in a sense [storm off without a word in a fit]
I agree that sometimes it is better to shut up. But at least for me, I absolutely expect Carol and myself to have enough internal discipline and control to at least get a one word topic out and a time tomorrow to discuss in earnest. Anything less than that would constitute a startling lack of self control in our marriage.

I don't "storm off". I get... Quiet. My big one is, "I will talk when I'm ready". "When I'm done" is also a thing with me. It's Pact-speak for "I am processing" and I want to make sure that I treat you like a human being when I'm ready to inform you. When my step-brother passed few years back, I was not immediately ready to discuss it with MP. I needed 2~3 hours to process my internal crap, first. I did tell MP that R** died. "Just let me do what I have to do."

quote:

It does occur to me though, that I'm in a venue where it's commonplace for a "master" to use the silent treatment to punish a "slave". I've always thought that was lunacy and it's equal lunacy in any other relationship interaction. But that is quite obviously a semi-acceptable strategy here. The problem is, I'm not a slave or even particularly submissive. So Carol would just get progressively more hurt if I did it to her. I'd put an end to it more abruptly for both our sake's.

I, absolutely, have done "silent treatment" as a punishment before. The purpose of such is not about external happenings in life. (It's not like situations like we are going to the funeral parlor.) It comes down more or less, that YOU did thing X. I want you to sit down and think about thing X, focus on it, and *understand* that thing X, should you do it again, will remove me from your life. During this time, the influence of "ME" should be taken away. You must face the fact that doing thing X WILL take me out of your life, which results in me NOT being your support system. I don't care if you *feel* bad. Whatever the heck you actually did, OWN it!

quote:

Carol's Commentary: She agrees that there has never been a point in our marriage, no matter how angry, when either she or I would not have been able to play fair. In fact, she glossed right over the whole "She's angry" part and thought of entirely in the frame of "playing fair".

Internal or external?

As much as it pains me to say so, Jeff, if Carol ever came to me door, and said you were abusing her, I'd put her under my roof without a second thought.

quote:

If it were me, I wouldn't be asking for a "positive" reaction.
Then if you were with me, you'd get the negative one and then you wouldn't be with me. There's a reason I look at Carol the way that I do and a very large part of that is that she doesn't do this stuff.

No, I probably wouldn't. If you could not wait until I was doing my processing while I'm attempting to handle <insert extreme life situation here>, you and I would never be suited for each other. If you tried to fix me, dictate the kind of time limits that I need, be in charge of whatever I'm doing internally... We'd never work.

quote:

And, you wouldn't be so negative about Carol, either.
You are very mistaken. Remember in my head that I am absolutely labeling this as abusive behavior. How much behavior from MrP would you put up with if you had decidedly labeled it as abusive?"

If **I** labeled it as abusive.? I'd be gone like a shot.

quote:

I do love Carol a great deal. Leaving her would absolutely cut out a large part of my soul. I do, however, have boundaries anyway and would do what I needed to do to retain my own mental health.

Yes. YES! This is it! (OMG, I might have an orgasm.)

NO ONE should ever stay with someone who is detrimental to their mental health.

quote:

I don't make a very good victim. I have said all the way along that I find the concept of a spanking as boundary enforcement to be laughable. If something is unacceptable in a relationship then it is unacceptable and it must change or the relationship must end.

I don't think I could touch this with a ten foot pole.

quote:

Carol's Response: These situations are outlandish in our relationship and would never happen. But she was pretty certain that she'd run into boundaries on that play. In my life, there is only one way to enforce a boundary in a marriage.

EVERYBODY has limits. Not just in play. In life.

quote:

If something (horrible) happened, and she was formulating her thoughts, you might not LIkE it, be happy about it, etc. But, that's your WIFE. I've seen the way you look at her. It would be something you worked on.
As I mentioned above, if something horrible happened you are right. I get it that all of us have breaking points. That was the rub. NOTHING horrible had happened. This was, in the end, a tiny little altercation in life not "my son died". I had to assume this was how she frequently treated him.

OK, so we're talking about the people in the movie now?

quote:

Recently, I attempted to open a thread about "restorative justice". We're not together on this. That "apology" just ain't an apology in some cases.
I have watched two shows and read at least one article on restorative justice. I have NEVER seen anything even remotely like this. The accused understands their crime. The entire point of RJ is that it gets everyone back on-team and on the same page. Point me to the show/article where they drag some bewildered person into a surprise "court" and all stare at him accusingly without saying a word. The accused begs to know what the crime was and is clearly out to sea 100%. That is diametrically opposed to anything like restorative justice.

My problem with RJ is that it focuses too much on the perpetrator. The perpetrator wants to be accepted back into society. Society wants to do the "feel good" thing in accepting the perpetrator back...

At the same time, RJ, once again makes a victim out of the person that is harmed. It almost corners them into the "you have to forgive"angle. Not for you, but because everybody else WANTS you to. Our society, again, says the harm you have endued, is secondary. Just smile nice and look pretty. We're going to scrape you off for the better good of our greater society. You? You were the person that got harmed, but you will be the person who continues to pay. The offender has more value than you. We choose to let that person back into our society. In doing so, we are demonstrating where our priorities lie.

quote:

The furthest I could go in that situation truthfully is, "I"m sorry you're hurt Bun." But without knowing anything further about what the hell is going on, beyond that is a lie.

No, empathy is not a lie. If I fell down and skinned my knee, and you just happened to come along, the primary point is that I've got a GD skinned knee. You wouldn't just look at me and say, "sorry you're hurt, Hon".

quote:

How can I know if I'm sorry about whatever it is if I don't even know it?

Most grown people are aware of their actions. They aren't stupid and they aren't children. If I asked you "what did you do yesterday?" you'd probably be able to tell me. You may not *interpret* your actions in the same way the other party did.

Let's go with something else. Since "Nick" is specifically mentioned, I'll talk about a recent thread that Nick put up.

Basic premise. Female teacher A slept with underage male student B. From this, little person C was created. News article. Female teacher A is suing formerly under-aged person B for child support.

I sat on my side of the screen, asking myself, just how many shades of wrong can this possibly be. I'm not a PHD or anything, but I can do simple math. It is blatantly obvious that female teacher A had the sexual encounter with underage student B, and little person C is now a living, breathing, walking evidence of proof that this happened.

Screw child support. Why is female teacher A NOT in jail? Why did she get away with statutory rape? Why is there no outrage?

Simply put, because Nick started the thread and his extremist view, white noise, etc, influenced the readers to be discounted. So, even when it's similar t the old expression of "even a broken clock is right twice a day," neither side of the gender debate can say, gender A is always right because... penis. Gender B is always right because... Vagina. Do that, and the message is lost.

quote:

Besides the lie angle though, there is the [non-consensual] demand to obey. I'm simply not that submissive. In such a situation, the silent party is punishing the other party and demanding that the other party jump through hoops for them in order to stop the punishment. I have better ways to stop the punishment.

There's a very real thing happening in our kink communities recently. The new wave is "false accusations about rape is as traumatizing to what the survivor of rape goes through, themselves". I find this to be deplorable and disgusting. Particularly when we are discussing something that is just secular to the kink community. We aren't talking about criminal charges here. Nobody is going to jail. We're talking about those situations that get people banned from kink events. Not people losing their job, their livelihood, the home where they sleep, et all.

I don't grok with this in any way. I have personal experience with both, so I know which one I'd choose if I had the option.

_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to JeffBC)

Post #: 49

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 3:24:04 PM

Kaliko

Posts: 3381
Joined: 9/25/2010
Status: offline

Thank you for the response, Peon. I'm not ignoring it. I just usually do my more thoughtful forum posts in a quiet house on early weekend mornings, so I expect I'll sit down with a cup of tea shortly after dawn tomorrow and probably argue something or other that you've said.

< Message edited by Kaliko -- 9/10/2016 3:27:02 PM >

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Post #: 50

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 3:39:00 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Watch me totally screw up the quote function here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
At first, I thought the premise was "letters from beyond the grave". I would do that. Shoot! I have that kind of place in thing now.

It is. Overall plot premise is that loving husband dies and writes timed delayed letters to help guide her back to a healthy life. It was supposed to be a sweet love story. It was obvioulsy perceived that way by the vast majority of viewers since it had the highest possible rating on netflix.

I'd absolutely write one. It's really not that uncommon for people to put some kind of 'final message to my family' type thing in their will, etc. Nothing extreme, but a last final message of "thank you for loving me in my life" or "I always loved you, too".

quote:

Carol's commentary: Had she watched the movie alone without me pointing stuff out she would've downplayed my concern. In her own words she would've been exactly like a man in the 60's saying to a feminist, "Oh come on babe! I just commented that you have a nice ass. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't think I can address this. Telling somebody "nice ass" just doesn't compare to the devastation of losing a spouse of roughly a decade.

quote:

Come on, Jeff. You've known me for years. Do you think MP *doesn't* put up with my crap?
Everyone in a long term relationship puts up with crap. The question is "what kind of crap and where are the boundaries?" I wouldn't even count "Honey I want my hair done as 'crap' in this context." At most that'd rise to the level of annoying.

Yeah. Just wait until you're the guy sniffing the effects of "Color by Clairol" because your wife thinks fourteen bucks for the cheap box is better than spending a hundred every month at the hair salon. The "nice" term for it is "frugal".

quote:

No, I am not easy to live with, but I've never been emotionally abusive to MP. (Neither has he to me.)
*phew* :) More seriously though, I should hope not. That's the question here. Do people see this film as emotionally & physically abusive? Would they see it that way if the genders were reversed?

As being a person who has not seen the film, I believe I am unqualified to answer.

quote:

In my current day, I can only think of two circumstances where I would physically (non-consensually) strike him. If he were harming me, and I had to use physical force to get past him to get through the door, I would. (Not proud of it, but I'd do it.) The other is stupid, but the day I get the call about my father's passing, I know I'm going into "don't touch me" mode.
Good. Now... let's assume you starting throwing plates and whatnot at him and he labeled that physical abuse. Would you think he was making a mountain out of a molehill and he should man-up? If a man did the same to a woman? I'm perfectly willing to give most anyone a pass for "family member just died" along with a handful of other obviously traumatic moments in life. But when such strategies become primary strategies then we are into the lands of abusive relationship.

If I actually cracked him in the head by throwing a plate? Hell, I'd EXPECT at least a half a dozen people that we know to take me by the elbow, say, "come on LP, we're taking you out of the house".

quote:

I do this, in a sense [storm off without a word in a fit]
I agree that sometimes it is better to shut up. But at least for me, I absolutely expect Carol and myself to have enough internal discipline and control to at least get a one word topic out and a time tomorrow to discuss in earnest. Anything less than that would constitute a startling lack of self control in our marriage.

I don't "storm off". I get... Quiet. My big one is, "I will talk when I'm ready". "When I'm done" is also a thing with me. It's Pact-speak for "I am processing" and I want to make sure that I treat you like a human being when I'm ready to inform you. When my step-brother passed few years back, I was not immediately ready to discuss it with MP. I needed 2~3 hours to process my internal crap, first. I did tell MP that R** died. "Just let me do what I have to do."

quote:

It does occur to me though, that I'm in a venue where it's commonplace for a "master" to use the silent treatment to punish a "slave". I've always thought that was lunacy and it's equal lunacy in any other relationship interaction. But that is quite obviously a semi-acceptable strategy here. The problem is, I'm not a slave or even particularly submissive. So Carol would just get progressively more hurt if I did it to her. I'd put an end to it more abruptly for both our sake's.

I, absolutely, have done "silent treatment" as a punishment before. The purpose of such is not about external happenings in life. (It's not like situations like we are going to the funeral parlor.) It comes down more or less, that YOU did thing X. I want you to sit down and think about thing X, focus on it, and *understand* that thing X, should you do it again, will remove me from your life. During this time, the influence of "ME" should be taken away. You must face the fact that doing thing X WILL take me out of your life, which results in me NOT being your support system. I don't care if you *feel* bad. Whatever the heck you actually did, OWN it!

quote:

Carol's Commentary: She agrees that there has never been a point in our marriage, no matter how angry, when either she or I would not have been able to play fair. In fact, she glossed right over the whole "She's angry" part and thought of entirely in the frame of "playing fair".

Internal or external?

As much as it pains me to say so, Jeff, if Carol ever came to me door, and said you were abusing her, I'd put her under my roof without a second thought.

quote:

If it were me, I wouldn't be asking for a "positive" reaction.
Then if you were with me, you'd get the negative one and then you wouldn't be with me. There's a reason I look at Carol the way that I do and a very large part of that is that she doesn't do this stuff.

No, I probably wouldn't. If you could not wait until I was doing my processing while I'm attempting to handle <insert extreme life situation here>, you and I would never be suited for each other. If you tried to fix me, dictate the kind of time limits that I need, be in charge of whatever I'm doing internally... We'd never work.

quote:

And, you wouldn't be so negative about Carol, either.
You are very mistaken. Remember in my head that I am absolutely labeling this as abusive behavior. How much behavior from MrP would you put up with if you had decidedly labeled it as abusive?"

If **I** labeled it as abusive.? I'd be gone like a shot.

quote:

I do love Carol a great deal. Leaving her would absolutely cut out a large part of my soul. I do, however, have boundaries anyway and would do what I needed to do to retain my own mental health.

Yes. YES! This is it! (OMG, I might have an orgasm.)

NO ONE should ever stay with someone who is detrimental to their mental health.

quote:

I don't make a very good victim. I have said all the way along that I find the concept of a spanking as boundary enforcement to be laughable. If something is unacceptable in a relationship then it is unacceptable and it must change or the relationship must end.

I don't think I could touch this with a ten foot pole.

quote:

Carol's Response: These situations are outlandish in our relationship and would never happen. But she was pretty certain that she'd run into boundaries on that play. In my life, there is only one way to enforce a boundary in a marriage.

EVERYBODY has limits. Not just in play. In life.

quote:

If something (horrible) happened, and she was formulating her thoughts, you might not LIkE it, be happy about it, etc. But, that's your WIFE. I've seen the way you look at her. It would be something you worked on.
As I mentioned above, if something horrible happened you are right. I get it that all of us have breaking points. That was the rub. NOTHING horrible had happened. This was, in the end, a tiny little altercation in life not "my son died". I had to assume this was how she frequently treated him.

OK, so we're talking about the people in the movie now?

quote:

Recently, I attempted to open a thread about "restorative justice". We're not together on this. That "apology" just ain't an apology in some cases.
I have watched two shows and read at least one article on restorative justice. I have NEVER seen anything even remotely like this. The accused understands their crime. The entire point of RJ is that it gets everyone back on-team and on the same page. Point me to the show/article where they drag some bewildered person into a surprise "court" and all stare at him accusingly without saying a word. The accused begs to know what the crime was and is clearly out to sea 100%. That is diametrically opposed to anything like restorative justice.

My problem with RJ is that it focuses too much on the perpetrator. The perpetrator wants to be accepted back into society. Society wants to do the "feel good" thing in accepting the perpetrator back...

At the same time, RJ, once again makes a victim out of the person that is harmed. It almost corners them into the "you have to forgive"angle. Not for you, but because everybody else WANTS you to. Our society, again, says the harm you have endued, is secondary. Just smile nice and look pretty. We're going to scrape you off for the better good of our greater society. You? You were the person that got harmed, but you will be the person who continues to pay. The offender has more value than you. We choose to let that person back into our society. In doing so, we are demonstrating where our priorities lie.

quote:

The furthest I could go in that situation truthfully is, "I"m sorry you're hurt Bun." But without knowing anything further about what the hell is going on, beyond that is a lie.

No, empathy is not a lie. If I fell down and skinned my knee, and you just happened to come along, the primary point is that I've got a GD skinned knee. You wouldn't just look at me and say, "sorry you're hurt, Hon".

quote:

How can I know if I'm sorry about whatever it is if I don't even know it?

Most grown people are aware of their actions. They aren't stupid and they aren't children. If I asked you "what did you do yesterday?" you'd probably be able to tell me. You may not *interpret* your actions in the same way the other party did.

Let's go with something else. Since "Nick" is specifically mentioned, I'll talk about a recent thread that Nick put up.

Basic premise. Female teacher A slept with underage male student B. From this, little person C was created. News article. Female teacher A is suing formerly under-aged person B for child support.

I sat on my side of the screen, asking myself, just how many shades of wrong can this possibly be. I'm not a PHD or anything, but I can do simple math. It is blatantly obvious that female teacher A had the sexual encounter with underage student B, and little person C is now a living, breathing, walking evidence of proof that this happened.

Screw child support. Why is female teacher A NOT in jail? Why did she get away with statutory rape? Why is there no outrage?

Simply put, because Nick started the thread and his extremist view, white noise, etc, influenced the readers to be discounted. So, even when it's similar t the old expression of "even a broken clock is right twice a day," neither side of the gender debate can say, gender A is always right because... penis. Gender B is always right because... Vagina. Do that, and the message is lost.

quote:

Besides the lie angle though, there is the [non-consensual] demand to obey. I'm simply not that submissive. In such a situation, the silent party is punishing the other party and demanding that the other party jump through hoops for them in order to stop the punishment. I have better ways to stop the punishment.

There's a very real thing happening in our kink communities recently. The new wave is "false accusations about rape is as traumatizing to what the survivor of rape goes through, themselves". I find this to be deplorable and disgusting. Particularly when we are discussing something that is just secular to the kink community. We aren't talking about criminal charges here. Nobody is going to jail. We're talking about those situations that get people banned from kink events. Not people losing their job, their livelihood, the home where they sleep, et all.

I don't grok with this in any way. I have personal experience with both, so I know which one I'd choose if I had the option.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 51

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 4:42:44 PM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Watch me totally screw up the quote function here.

ROFL, you did a great job! You should see me struggle with your cursed color codes every time I quote you. I still do that as a sign of respect by the way.

I don't think I can address this. Telling somebody "nice ass" just doesn't compare to the devastation of losing a spouse of roughly a decade.
Agreed, but no we're in the territory of "you didn't see the movie". For instance, the events I'm referring to happen before his death.

Yeah. Just wait until you're the guy sniffing the effects of "Color by Clairol" because your wife thinks fourteen bucks for the cheap box is better than spending a hundred every month at the hair salon. The "nice" term for it is "frugal".
Carol self-colors her hair. She's also too frugal and not nearly interested enough in beauty also. The only thing I can say to that is everyone has their own tolerances but man, if that's the worst that ever happens to me in my marriage, I'd consider that miraculous.

If I actually cracked him in the head by throwing a plate? Hell, I'd EXPECT at least a half a dozen people that we know to take me by the elbow, say, "come on LP, we're taking you out of the house".
Heh, no surprise there. Frankly, I wouldn't be very surprised if YOU were taking you out of the house about half a second after that incident.

I don't "storm off". I get... Quiet. My big one is, "I will talk when I'm ready". "When I'm done" is also a thing with me. It's Pact-speak for "I am processing" and I want to make sure that I treat you like a human being when I'm ready to inform you. When my step-brother passed few years back, I was not immediately ready to discuss it with MP. I needed 2~3 hours to process my internal crap, first. I did tell MP that R** died. "Just let me do what I have to do."
Nobody [sane] would argue that some time to process isn't sometimes helpful or even necessary. For me, at least, my right to process ends the moment I've induced a sense of terrified confusion in Carol. That simply isn't an acceptable state for any number of reasons both common-sense and love-based. So I'd least control myself enough to offer her a general topic, an assessment of relationship severity, and a time to talk. Allowing her to just be lost and scared is exactly what I'd consider emotional abuse.

I, absolutely, have done "silent treatment" as a punishment before. The purpose of such is not about external happenings in life. (It's not like situations like we are going to the funeral parlor.) It comes down more or less, that YOU did thing X. I want you to sit down and think about thing X, focus on it, and *understand* that thing X, should you do it again, will remove me from your life. During this time, the influence of "ME" should be taken away. You must face the fact that doing thing X WILL take me out of your life, which results in me NOT being your support system. I don't care if you *feel* bad. Whatever the heck you actually did, OWN it!
Seems like a whole ton of communication to be called the silent treatment. How about if you just got visibly very angry and glowered at them while remaining uncommunicative? By the way, I've done the same with Carol complete with putting her in a pitch black room to help her focus with no suggestion as to when or where I would invite her out. I didn't particularly like that but I don't feel bad about doing it. Like with you, she understood everything that was going on. She was scared, I'm sure. But not lost.

quote:

Carol's Commentary: She agrees that there has never been a point in our marriage, no matter how angry, when either she or I would not have been able to play fair. In fact, she glossed right over the whole "She's angry" part and thought of entirely in the frame of "playing fair".
Internal or external? As much as it pains me to say so, Jeff, if Carol ever came to me door, and said you were abusing her, I'd put her under my roof without a second thought.

All of these commentaries were her thoughts as I was discussing this answer to you and making sure the things I was saying were accurate in her eyes also. And I surely would hope that if you ever thought Carol was being abused, however that came to your attention, that you would act as definitively as you were able to stop it. You'd do so with my thanks even were that abuser me although that's a pretty outlandish scenario.

No, I probably wouldn't. If you could not wait until I was doing my processing while I'm attempting to handle <insert extreme life situation here>, you and I would never be suited for each other. If you tried to fix me, dictate the kind of time limits that I need, be in charge of whatever I'm doing internally... We'd never work.
Again, I suspect we are talking at cross-purposes here. No sane human doesn't give A TON of leeway for things like death in the family. Nor would I be unwilling to give you time to process. However, were I both terrified and totally lost I'd expect you to muster enough to at least deal with the basics of that.

If **I** labeled it as abusive.? I'd be gone like a shot.
Again, as I was certain would be true. I continue to suspect we are talking at cross purposes here but perhaps my answers above clarify it.

OK, so we're talking about the people in the movie now?
I suppose. I'm trying to stick to one scenario. Obviously there are a million different ways that things like the silent treatment can play out. It is this particular manifestation of it that I am objecting to. How can allowing someone you claim to love be in a state of terrorized confusion be anything but emotional abuse? It seems like it'd make a fine torture technique.

No, empathy is not a lie. If I fell down and skinned my knee, and you just happened to come along, the primary point is that I've got a GD skinned knee. You wouldn't just look at me and say, "sorry you're hurt, Hon".
Of course not. But if I came along and you were blubbering there on the curb and I had absolutely no freakin idea what else am I supposed to do offer sympathy for the thing I DO know. In this particular case, there was solid reason to think the hurt was caused by ME but I have no freakin idea what the issue is.

Most grown people are aware of their actions. They aren't stupid and they aren't children. If I asked you "what did you do yesterday?" you'd probably be able to tell me. You may not *interpret* your actions in the same way the other party did.
Again, of course not. That's where the whole communication thing comes in.

Let's go with something else. Since "Nick" is specifically mentioned, I'll talk about a recent thread that Nick put up.

Basic premise. Female teacher A slept with underage male student B. From this, little person C was created. News article. Female teacher A is suing formerly under-aged person B for child support.

I sat on my side of the screen, asking myself, just how many shades of wrong can this possibly be. I'm not a PHD or anything, but I can do simple math. It is blatantly obvious that female teacher A had the sexual encounter with underage student B, and little person C is now a living, breathing, walking evidence of proof that this happened.

Screw child support. Why is female teacher A NOT in jail? Why did she get away with statutory rape? Why is there no outrage?

Simply put, because Nick started the thread and his extremist view, white noise, etc, influenced the readers to be discounted. So, even when it's similar t the old expression of "even a broken clock is right twice a day," neither side of the gender debate can say, gender A is always right because... penis. Gender B is always right because... Vagina. Do that, and the message is lost.
Exactly my point also. PeonForHer's post above clarified for me a part of the history as to why I see "men's issues" one way and Nick sees it another. We go to "different churches"... very different churches even if the names are the same.

There's a very real thing happening in our kink communities recently. The new wave is "false accusations about rape is as traumatizing to what the survivor of rape goes through, themselves". I find this to be deplorable and disgusting. Particularly when we are discussing something that is just secular to the kink community. We aren't talking about criminal charges here. Nobody is going to jail. We're talking about those situations that get people banned from kink events. Not people losing their job, their livelihood, the home where they sleep, et all.
I think that the false accusation is reprehensible on any number of levels not least of which is even contained social damage can be very harmful. That being said, in the absence of this bleeding out into the larger community and/or hitting the courts, the idea that the damage caused by the false accusation approaches that of actually being raped seems ludicrous. I've been surprised by things before and I'd be fascinated by an actual study to that effect, but I feel pretty comfortable with the "ludicrous" position.

I'm very concerned about false accusation also, but my concern lies in the areas you proscribed... legal, job, and nation-wide society where, as you noted, the stakes are so much higher.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to LadyPact)

Post #: 52

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/10/2016 4:55:22 PM

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
True about that '50%'. But not if it's way less than 50%. You have to diminish your enemy by dividing it - preferably into groups that hate each other rather than, the (hypothetical) ruler. 'Divide and conquer' is the key and time-honoured strategy here. You have to make the majority feel that if they buy into a part of a belief, they buy into all of it, including the far out and nutty stuff. Ever since the suffragettes this strategy of divide and rule has been employed, and vigorously, against women. Those early feminists were portrayed as ugly, lunatic, man-hating harridans - just as are feminists today. This goes quite a long way to explaining why so many women - and men - completely accept the principle of equality of the sexes, but shrink in suspicion or even horror at the thought of calling themselves as 'feminists'.

Heh, I understand the political colonization. I think that's the very thing the right fears about feminism and with at least some reason to have concern. I am also acutely aware how the oligarchs like to pit us against each other.

For me personally I shun the label feminist and MRA along with almost all other similar labels. Ask me if I'm a liberal and I'm immediately going to ask you for a specific topic because nowadays being liberal includes war crimes, global warming, American hegemony, and the police state. If you ask me whether we should have strong social safety nets the answer is yes. If you ask me whether we should bomb hospitals and weddings the answer is no. In American politics both are liberal positions. I see feminism in exactly the same way. Labels are too easily manipulated nowadays for them to have much utility.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Post #: 53

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/11/2016 5:44:50 AM

Kaliko

Posts: 3381
Joined: 9/25/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

After that first wave of the men's movement, one camp - now the dominant camp, at least when one thinks of Men's Rights Activism - split off and became anti-feminist. It's this group that Nick clearly belongs to. For me, this is disastrous, in two ways. Firstly, feminists aren't the enemy. Not real ones - the ones I've met and known - who do utterly subscribe to the notion of equality.

Equality in all ways, yes? Because you yourself recently posted about a circumstance in which you don't view or treat women the same way you do men. If you see the need for equality just as long as you are comfortable with it, then I find it hard to believe you can objectively say this about your friends. Or, is it accepted and okay to choose which circumstances to demand and expect equality in? (Which, as far as I can tell, is the issue. Not that women expect equality, but that women expect equality only when it suits them.)

quote:

These have been allies to me and to males I've known. It does no good at all for men to harm their cause. Secondly, even if feminists were the way Nick, for example, portrays them - what is the *point* in fighting them? It isn't feminists who can give Nick and his cohorts what they want, because it's not theirs to give. You don't pick a fight with your mother, sisters and wife to stop your government packing you off to get killed in war. They generally don't want you to go and get killed either. You fight the government.

I only half agree with you here, but only because personally, I would be more comfortable taking a cause up directly with leadership rather than becoming a public spokesperson. I have always been involved in one way or another with local leaders and I have known that going straight to the governing body is the way to get things done. But we really can no longer discount the power that online social media has in influencing decision-making. I would be hard-pressed to believe there is an organization out there with any influence which does not monitor social media for relevant activity. Politicians certainly are monitoring activity, that's for sure. They might not be reading this post on Collarchat, but they (or, their interns) are reading others. They're keeping stats. Online discussion actually is a viable way to effect change.

Now, someone still needs to pound the pavement and make things happen, of course. But there are roles in movements, and not everyone can fulfill the role of that person who approaches leadership directly. Some people draw attention to the cause.

I imagine that ineffectual tirades that actually do make the men's rights activists look bad are probably equivalent to women who make ridiculous demands regarding manspreading and the like. I was a vegetarian/vegan for years and I remember cringing when I listened to two PETA representatives on a radio show. They were idiots making idiotic points and I didn't want to be associated with them. BUT - I was associated with them. Every vegetarian and vegan out there is associated with the sometimes destructive, sometimes stupid acts of PETA, not because they choose to be but because society makes that association without need for their consent. Same with men's rights activists and feminists. I'm certain that there are froth-at-the-mouth types in both camps. Those are the ones who get the attention of those of us who aren't following along closely, and so an association is made.

So yes, there is an actual need to "fight" feminists, if that's what one chooses to do. Voices and opinions should be heard, even when - or especially when - they're uncomfortable to consider.

quote:

It's a waste of time because Nick does not and will not define 'feminist' or 'feminism'. 'Feminism is what feminists do' is what he always says, without apparently ever seeing the gaping hole in the logic of it. If a woman subscribes to the principle of equality of the sexes, then she subscribes to the fundamental principle of feminism.

See what I wrote above. I agree with Nick. I'll refer to the thread we had recently on that custodial bill in Florida, in which even the local chapter of NOW was arguing against starting out the custody determination with both men and women being equal. Arguing against equality. If this isn't what feminism stands for, then feminists need to start saying so, not continuing to allow it to happen. That is how it works in social media today. If you're not out there setting the record straight, then you're allowing bad information to take hold.

quote:

'The three waves of feminism' is so entrenched a notion that it's hard to deny it. But the 'three waves' involved aren't chronological stages in which one wave supplants the wave that happened before it (though obviously some issues - like that of votes for women in one's own country, become redundant). You don't have to be a 'third wave feminist' to be a feminist. During the third wave feminism has gone in all sorts of directions. I think it's perfectly possible to disapprove of one or more of those directions, while holding to the principle of equality.

So, how would a woman (or man) not be a feminist today, then? We live in a society in which gender equality is the law. Assuming we accept and abide by the law, is there any option for someone to then not be a feminist, in your view?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

For me personally I shun the label feminist and MRA along with almost all other similar labels.

I hope you're not going to let him get away with that.

< Message edited by Kaliko -- 9/11/2016 5:47:29 AM >

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Post #: 54

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/11/2016 10:12:08 AM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

After that first wave of the men's movement, one camp - now the dominant camp, at least when one thinks of Men's Rights Activism - split off and became anti-feminist. It's this group that Nick clearly belongs to. For me, this is disastrous, in two ways. Firstly, feminists aren't the enemy. Not real ones - the ones I've met and known - who do utterly subscribe to the notion of equality.

Equality in all ways, yes? Because you yourself recently posted about a circumstance in which you don't view or treat women the same way you do men. If you see the need for equality just as long as you are comfortable with it, then I find it hard to believe you can objectively say this about your friends. Or, is it accepted and okay to choose which circumstances to demand and expect equality in? (Which, as far as I can tell, is the issue. Not that women expect equality, but that women expect equality only when it suits them.)

Which circumstance are you talking about?

quote:

These have been allies to me and to males I've known. It does no good at all for men to harm their cause. Secondly, even if feminists were the way Nick, for example, portrays them - what is the *point* in fighting them? It isn't feminists who can give Nick and his cohorts what they want, because it's not theirs to give. You don't pick a fight with your mother, sisters and wife to stop your government packing you off to get killed in war. They generally don't want you to go and get killed either. You fight the government.

quote:

So yes, there is an actual need to "fight" feminists, if that's what one chooses to do. Voices and opinions should be heard, even when - or especially when - they're uncomfortable to consider.

If you believe that feminists have an undue influence on the powers that be, then go right ahead. From my point of view feminism is not a great influence on governments in general. Those who argue for equality aren't generally the ones who hold power.

quote:

It's a waste of time because Nick does not and will not define 'feminist' or 'feminism'. 'Feminism is what feminists do' is what he always says, without apparently ever seeing the gaping hole in the logic of it. If a woman subscribes to the principle of equality of the sexes, then she subscribes to the fundamental principle of feminism.

quote:

I agree with Nick. I'll refer to the thread we had recently on that custodial bill in Florida, in which even the local chapter of NOW was arguing against starting out the custody determination with both men and women being equal. Arguing against equality. If this isn't what feminism stands for, then feminists need to start saying so, not continuing to allow it to happen. That is how it works in social media today. If you're not out there setting the record straight, then you're allowing bad information to take hold.

I wasn't involved in that thread. (Or, if I was, I dumped it after it got destructively ugly.) After glancing through it: it goes to the matter of pregnancy, childbirth and the rearing of children. In those subjects, 'equality' becomes a murky subject because we're dealing with incommensurability. Women can't inseminate men; men can't get pregnant and can't give birth. There's a way through this - a way to work out what's fair and what isn't - but it takes a lot of mind-stretching. Most, it seems, can't do that, even if they want to (and plenty don't).

I'm talking about the 'veil of ignorance' idea: you try to imagine yourself not knowing what sex you're going to be 'born into'. My position on abortion came a lot clearer to me after thinking from that premise, for instance. ("There's no way anyone's telling *me* what to do with *my*body if *I* were to get pregnant", etc.) That thread also appears to have thrown up arguments surrounding responsibility (for the child, etc) - on the one hand, there's the sense of responsibility that mothers seem to feel which seems pretty hard-wired to me, most of the time; versus the responsibility that seems to be being thrown at fathers with new legislation. More apples and oranges. Arguments about equality go quite deep and are pretty nuanced in that kind of debate - or should be.

quote:

quote:

'The three waves of feminism' is so entrenched a notion that it's hard to deny it. But the 'three waves' involved aren't chronological stages in which one wave supplants the wave that happened before it (though obviously some issues - like that of votes for women in one's own country, become redundant). You don't have to be a 'third wave feminist' to be a feminist. During the third wave feminism has gone in all sorts of directions. I think it's perfectly possible to disapprove of one or more of those directions, while holding to the principle of equality.

So, how would a woman (or man) not be a feminist today, then? We live in a society in which gender equality is the law. Assuming we accept and abide by the law, is there any option for someone to then not be a feminist, in your view?

Oh yes, easily. A part of what the third wave has been about is less obvious, less conscious sexism. It isn't just a question of black and white, of saying to yourself 'I don't believe in equality' or 'I do believe in equality'. It's a question of depth of belief. Also 'you can't legislate to change the way people feel', goes the old saying. (Well, I think you can, a bit - but it never goes the whole way.) There are too many examples to mention: but there have been rapists who've claimed to hold fast to the principle of equality but somehow haven't grasped that they're demonstrating their lack of deep-down sexism; there are women who have brains and ability but somehow can't bring themselves to go for the job they want and can do ... etc, etc.

Perhaps a bit more contentiously: I do have a feeling that to be a contented femsub, you have to be pretty solidly a feminist, too. It goes to the point of 'informed consent'. To have *got* to that position, you must have recognised that you had the freedom to make your choice. You must also have known, beforehand, that you had power to give up, should you want to, and that it was your right to do so or not to do so. Those freedoms and those rights are the things that feminism has argued for. Feminine submissiveness in the BDSM context isn't generally about 'pre-equality', to me, it's about 'post-equality'. But on that note, I'm done with my mansplaining. Just a hunch. ;)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

For me personally I shun the label feminist and MRA along with almost all other similar labels.

I hope you're not going to let him get away with that.

At bottom, I don't care all that much, in Jeff's case. To me, his heart seems *roughly* in the right place. Or, it does, from what I can see of what he's said so far. I do think there are disadvantages to shunning labels that fit ('fit' either for oneself, or for one's opponent) and one should watch out for that 'divide and conquer' tactic (amongst lots of other things) - not least because it's so prevalent and so effective. But one advantage is that shunning such labels means you can, sometimes, ditch the tribalism that can often comes with them.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to Kaliko)

Post #: 55

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/11/2016 11:05:50 AM

Nnanji

Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I've always said that there were real issues that could be discussed about the male side of gender equality and yet somehow Nick passes on those for weirdly skewed fluff pieces. So since this just came up last night, here's what I think of as a "real" issue.

Last night Carol and I watched a very highly rated love story... "PS: I love you". The only thing I could think through most of the movie was man, if the genders were reversed here you'd have a very different reaction. What I saw was a physically and emotionally abusive woman who was gaslighting a good but clearly vulnerable male who loved her for reasons unknown (presumably because she was hot). What I kept thinking was, "Man, that guy desperately needs to get some therapy."

Carol, sitting right next to me on the couch thought it was pretty funny until I pointed it out. In fact, lots and lots of people obviously didn't care about this behavior since the film is well reviewed as a freakin LOVE STORY.

It's on Netflix. There's no need to watch anything more than the very first scene.

Thoughts?

I actually think Nick sounds, now, like women did in the 60's. He's often correct and ridiculed, just as women were in the 60's.

(in reply to JeffBC)

Post #: 56

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/11/2016 11:48:28 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

when did it stop?

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Nnanji)

Post #: 57

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/11/2016 11:49:11 AM

WhoreMods

Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I've always said that there were real issues that could be discussed about the male side of gender equality and yet somehow Nick passes on those for weirdly skewed fluff pieces. So since this just came up last night, here's what I think of as a "real" issue.

Last night Carol and I watched a very highly rated love story... "PS: I love you". The only thing I could think through most of the movie was man, if the genders were reversed here you'd have a very different reaction. What I saw was a physically and emotionally abusive woman who was gaslighting a good but clearly vulnerable male who loved her for reasons unknown (presumably because she was hot). What I kept thinking was, "Man, that guy desperately needs to get some therapy."

Carol, sitting right next to me on the couch thought it was pretty funny until I pointed it out. In fact, lots and lots of people obviously didn't care about this behavior since the film is well reviewed as a freakin LOVE STORY.

It's on Netflix. There's no need to watch anything more than the very first scene.

Thoughts?

I actually think Nick sounds, now, like women did in the 60's. He's often correct and ridiculed, just as women were in the 60's.

So you're pro-feminist now?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Nnanji)

Post #: 58

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/11/2016 12:18:43 PM

Nnanji

Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I've always said that there were real issues that could be discussed about the male side of gender equality and yet somehow Nick passes on those for weirdly skewed fluff pieces. So since this just came up last night, here's what I think of as a "real" issue.

Last night Carol and I watched a very highly rated love story... "PS: I love you". The only thing I could think through most of the movie was man, if the genders were reversed here you'd have a very different reaction. What I saw was a physically and emotionally abusive woman who was gaslighting a good but clearly vulnerable male who loved her for reasons unknown (presumably because she was hot). What I kept thinking was, "Man, that guy desperately needs to get some therapy."

Carol, sitting right next to me on the couch thought it was pretty funny until I pointed it out. In fact, lots and lots of people obviously didn't care about this behavior since the film is well reviewed as a freakin LOVE STORY.

It's on Netflix. There's no need to watch anything more than the very first scene.

Thoughts?

I actually think Nick sounds, now, like women did in the 60's. He's often correct and ridiculed, just as women were in the 60's.

So you're pro-feminist now?

Well, just like Lucy above, you're response really doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I really see no debatable issue either of you raised. It's more just a gotcha mentality.

(in reply to WhoreMods)

Post #: 59

RE: In an effort to help Nicky out - 9/11/2016 12:21:21 PM

WhoreMods

Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I've always said that there were real issues that could be discussed about the male side of gender equality and yet somehow Nick passes on those for weirdly skewed fluff pieces. So since this just came up last night, here's what I think of as a "real" issue.

Last night Carol and I watched a very highly rated love story... "PS: I love you". The only thing I could think through most of the movie was man, if the genders were reversed here you'd have a very different reaction. What I saw was a physically and emotionally abusive woman who was gaslighting a good but clearly vulnerable male who loved her for reasons unknown (presumably because she was hot). What I kept thinking was, "Man, that guy desperately needs to get some therapy."

Carol, sitting right next to me on the couch thought it was pretty funny until I pointed it out. In fact, lots and lots of people obviously didn't care about this behavior since the film is well reviewed as a freakin LOVE STORY.

It's on Netflix. There's no need to watch anything more than the very first scene.

Thoughts?

I actually think Nick sounds, now, like women did in the 60's. He's often correct and ridiculed, just as women were in the 60's.

So you're pro-feminist now?

Well, just like Lucy above, you're response really doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I really see no debatable issue either of you raised. It's more just a gotcha mentality.

So you've not been dismissing feminists as histrionic ranters, until you decided that comparing butthurt boy to them might be a compliment rather than a diss?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Nnanji)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: In an effort to help Nicky out

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.156