|
HeavansKeeper -> RE: A (half joking) thought about the word "Domme" (5/18/2009 2:12:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
To pose a counter-question, I see that many male dominants choose to append some other useful adjectives to their own descriptors: they'll take a name that reflects that they are Gorean male dominants, or Christian male dominants. Obviously a man who is Christian or Gorean has a reason to wear his values and principles on his sleeve, because he's looking for a relationship structured on those values. And the Goreans actually have their own linguistic codes that mark them, male and female, as a like-minded community. Have you given any thought as to why this seems to be ok and to pass without any real comment in this community, while the use of a simple ending to indicate femininity has to be endlessly debated, mocked, and stigmatized? Even by women?
[Unquoted parts were read and will likely be addressed]
Firstly I think we had a misunderstanding. I was not trying to be the white man raping, pillaging, and changing the world around him. I was giving examples to show how doing that to women feels when compared to other groups. To that end, I assume we agree - It can be a hurtful and demeaning endeavor.
Your example of the Obeah culture exemplifies a distinguishing trait (Being black and apparently female [I did not know Obeah was a female thing, specifically]) being exhibited with pride, as opposed to being used as a abject quality. (Important note to avoid ambiguity: I'm not saying white is better than black, male is better than female. I'm saying some people feel it is, and remind others of the differences in hopes of dashing the minority.)
Specifying gender (this should apply to other demographic traits) can come from pride or prejudice.
Regarding the comment about "default and correct" race and gender, I maintain the above position. Specifying a human is not a white male can be an act of pride or an act of prejudice (or an act of objectivity, my personal favorite). I do not attempt to ignore the struggles of minorities, nor downplay the existence of prejudice. Additionally, I have no wish to censor people by not allowing them to make whatever specifications they feel are needed/appropriate/desired.
In response to the quoted section:
I vaguely recall it being the late master of semantics, George Carlin, who reminded us that having pride in our demographics is silly. It takes no skill, decision, effort, or planning to be female, Irish, tall, black, etc*. Having pride in one's choices or achievements is another matter. Being a Christian or a Gorean (to recycle examples) is a matter of choice. If a reasonable person makes a choice, they feel it's a good choice (at least better than the alternatives). The can have pride in choosing the best choice.
In respect to Goreans, I first admit a fair deal of ignorance. As I understand it, there is a certain clash about female dominance, that is to say women are the property of men (Obviously this is stripped of specifics, exceptions, ceremonies, codes, laws, rules, customs, etc.) In this capacity, specifying gender is important. It determines which side of the kneel you reside on. In the Gorean culture, it seems needed to specify gender, as gender is always a factor. I assume this passes in the BDSM community at large because "It's their thing." Also, I've never met a single Gorean who tries to push their lifestyle on others. I know this is a logical fallacy, but I've never even heard of it happening. In my experience, it's a very "volunteer only" culture. Which means all practitioners offered consent.
Think back to the early American history, namely 1700-1900, a hard time to be black. The society (with few exceptions) felt blacks were beneath whites. It was not uncommon to specify if someone was black. Why? Because it instantly determined their rung on the social ladder. Later, this continues with segregation in (specifically) black schools, black drinking fountains, black parks, etc. When we didn't know better (by this I mean whites** all stayed quiet about the abuses they committed daily), specifying race was fine, because it was linked to their power.
In today's world, we're trying hard to erase the white man's footprint on the world (not here to argue whether its been more harm or good, but to say it's left more than a few cultures battered). Leaving the power to excite and continue prejudice is in conflict with the goal. Right now, ideally, a person's power is independent of race, gender, etc.
*Participating in the cultures based on these demographics involves choice, which implies "pride as defined by choice". That said many demographic cultures exist by the exclusion of others, which is defined as prejudice. Whether prejudice is good or bad is not my debate, but I opted not to put my "Proud to be Prejudice" bumper sticker on.
** Interesting note, I happen to be Jewish, so if we'd like to get personal about me and my people, let's keep it straight.
In short, the specifying of gender can be done with pride, prejudice, or simply stating an objective truth. Plan accordingly.
A counter-counter question, why do we not specify subbe vs. sub? Rephrased, why do we not feel a need to specify gender on the other side of the kneel?
|
|
|
|
