quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
post 231: snipped it all!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

there was a time when that was all there was availiable as a matter of survival. women were only to happy to take care of the kids and be suzy homemaker when hubby was out killing the wolf that was in the chicken house and had blisters down to the bone from plowing the fields.

When was this exactly?

When you actually look at historical records you discover that men and women both worked outside the home and on the farms unless they were upper-class. In the upper-classes men and women had parallel social roles and until democracies some parallel political and economic power and authority

This idea of homemaker and breadwinner is really a product of the 19th century middle-class Victorian ideas. It functioned as one way to distinguish that middle class from lower and upper classes. As the middle class grew in economic and political power their norms started to be promoted in general society.

This idea of homemaker and breadwinner is not the norm for most of human history for the majority of human beings.

quote:

BTW, the first feminist author I'm aware of that advocated universal castration for men was Andrea Dworkin. After being outed at a NYC club as a masochist with a master, she has since backed away from her original posit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Submotive

i have a lot of dominant traits in my personality, which makes submitting quite a challenge at times, but i don't believe women are naturally dominant or superior, nor are we naturally submissive. We are individuals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: Submotive

i have a lot of dominant traits in my personality, which makes submitting quite a challenge at times, but i don't believe women are naturally dominant or superior, nor are we naturally submissive. We are individuals.

"We are individuals"..........yes....I think that applies to us all, male and female. I've said this before: I have never known courage, fear, intellect, stupidity, honor, deceit, love, or hate to observe any racial, age, or gender boundaries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aimtoplease101

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: Submotive

i have a lot of dominant traits in my personality, which makes submitting quite a challenge at times, but i don't believe women are naturally dominant or superior, nor are we naturally submissive. We are individuals.

"We are individuals"..........yes....I think that applies to us all, male and female. I've said this before: I have never known courage, fear, intellect, stupidity, honor, deceit, love, or hate to observe any racial, age, or gender boundaries.

Nor, for that matter, to any particular orientation, be it domme, sub or otherwise.

ATP

quote:

Do you hold racial civil rights and gay civil rights and religious civil rights movements to these same standards?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristan

thetammyjo,

quote:

Do you hold racial civil rights and gay civil rights and religious civil rights movements to these same standards?

Yes, but maybe that's just the result of my buddhist nature.  lol.

Tristan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

there was a time when that was all there was availiable as a matter of survival. women were only to happy to take care of the kids and be suzy homemaker when hubby was out killing the wolf that was in the chicken house and had blisters down to the bone from plowing the fields.

When was this exactly?

When you actually look at historical records you discover that men and women both worked outside the home and on the farms unless they were upper-class. In the upper-classes men and women had parallel social roles and until democracies some parallel political and economic power and authority

This idea of homemaker and breadwinner is really a product of the 19th century middle-class Victorian ideas. It functioned as one way to distinguish that middle class from lower and upper classes. As the middle class grew in economic and political power their norms started to be promoted in general society.

This idea of homemaker and breadwinner is not the norm for most of human history for the majority of human beings.

at various points in history it was also a product of:
the american indian.
many tribes of afrika.
much of russia.
several eastern cultures.
yes the middle class.
finally rural or woodsman life as this and many nations were at one time

if you limit your scope to european upper class as the majority of human beings i suppose you can say what you did.

if we can include people as late as the middle class it seems pretty reasonable to suggest that the majority of human being thruout time can be included in the norm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
post 231: snipped it all!

you know i started to respond to this but the time it would have taken me to fix this mess due to your lack of proper quoting simply isnt worth my time.
so in a word i will just leave it at: what you say is incorrect and seen thru your feminist filters rather than debate this with you. if you want to fix this mess then i will happily continue with you on the subject.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristan

thetammyjo,

quote:

Do you hold racial civil rights and gay civil rights and religious civil rights movements to these same standards?

Yes, but maybe that's just the result of my buddhist nature. lol.

Tristan

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
The norm for all of human history everywhere appears to be that everyone works outside the home in some fashion. There is no universal and timeless breadwinner-homemaker divide as you'd like to believe. Most people are fighting to survive too much to actually think they can make it with such a divide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
I'd say that your anti-feminist filters are pretty damned strong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
Yet I do not think you are misogynistic (sorry this feminist doesn't go tossing that word around unless she has evidence to support it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
I think that you have strong feelings for a reason I still do not understand. You try to back these with sound bites and theories and lots of rherotic -- a general and very well used approach in many arguments and used by all types of people for all sorts of reasons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
And I actually haven't yet said what I believe in terms of feminism other than in two areas: I think a lot of people (you included) are making incredibly broad and unsupported claims about a social movement called feminism; the other is that equality has not been achieved yet in the USA in terms of sex as a category for treatment. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

I try to understand social movements (whether I'm in them or not) from a historical prespective and from a goal focus. What are they trying to achieve and how have they gone about attempting to reach the goals? Social movements rarely achieve all of their goals because societies change slowly and because all social movements fraction into different branches (which is good and bad for reasons in terms of reaching said goals).

One of the most annoying things (for me) in this entire thread are the ideas that feminism or any social movement is some unified entity when that is simply untrue and that it is exists outside of a historical or social context. Portraying a social movement as an evil is ignoring the basics about social movements, why they happen, and how they operate. It may work great as rhetoric but it is not the same as evidence or fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Many men (not all) spent thousands of years doing everything they could to keep women down. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiddlegirl

Does anyone know of any references for that story about Dworkin at the SM club?  It smells like urban legend to me.  I didn't see any mention of it in the Wikipedia article about Dworkin, nor in the first couple of pages of a google search on Dworkin+bdsm.


Fiddlegirl

quote:

ORIGINAL:subtlesubie

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Many men (not all) spent thousands of years doing everything they could to keep women down.

Many men (not all) spent thousands of milli-seconds doing everything they could to not laugh at this line. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos

The simple reality is feminist ideals have taken the collective (genetic?) memory of thousands of years of human behavior and stood it upon its head. In doing this, they are essentially asking for something that is unnatural, not necessarily wrong in a moral sense. Since primitive days humans have followed a simple code of might makes right, which has in general belonged to the male.

But our past century of modern industrialization and constitutional republic has offered a causeway for women in which they have been allowed to press for equality and make true headway without the aid of a queen or empress. Much of this progress has been good and tolerated by the male half of the species. It is the latter incarnation of the feminist movement, entrenching itself snugly and shielded by liberal politics, education and media, which seems to have conceived aims beyond mere equality to cultural brainwashing. The basic message is: men are idiots and cruel simpletons who are easily lead around by their cocks. The growing number of men who seem to be "pissed off" about feminism may be so due to this prevalence, and they have every right to be so, according to their nature.