Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Is Elise Sutton right?


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/23/2006 11:02:56 AM   
amayos


Posts: 1553
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: New England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

There have been several tribes noted in anthropological studies...



Ah yes, "a tribe, somewhere out there". The pedantic, often last straw used in discussion to support the insistence of an overall theory about human nature. Observation of many of these intact tribal customs often reveals clear lines of expected behavior between the sexes, but never mind. The idea that male / female roles are adopted due to local economics and social conditions, if you would take the time to re-read my earlier comment, is indeed a portion of what I addressed, but I don't think it's the crux of it all. To sum it up, I do beleive there is something inherent in human nature that is blind to words like "economics" and "industrial revolution".

Be aware that while labeling my viewpoint as simplistic bullshit, you openly admit in turn that what you virulently defend is in the end a theory. Let's discuss these matters intelligently and with respect for all parties present. As pointed out several times by others, it will certainly help your debate with others if you do so.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 281
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/23/2006 11:09:53 AM   
amayos


Posts: 1553
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: New England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Hi everyone. I just thought I would step in here and translate, because sometimes Amayos tends to obfuscate. What he's really trying to say is that in the good ole days, Caitlyn would be going to a finishing school learning home-ec and horseback riding instead of studying history with pompous, self-important, I-know-it-all & I'm-better-than-you PhD ambitions. Down the road, the guy Caitlyn marries will be ironing his own shirts, cooking the meals, holding down a job, changing the babies diapers, car pooling kids to and fro, and telling his buddies "no, sorry, I can't play golf this weekend, I have too many honey-dos."


LOL
Thanks for clearing this up, cloudboy!

-----{--@




< Message edited by amayos -- 3/23/2006 11:12:04 AM >

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 282
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/23/2006 11:51:08 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
There are two things you can bet on:
 
1. No man in my life, will ever have to iron for themselves, cook for themselves, or be told by me that they can't go enjoy doing guy things with the other men. A woman can't be a women, if she is unwilling to let a man be a man.
 
2. Nobody will ever be stupid enough to want to marry me.

(in reply to amayos)
Profile   Post #: 283
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/23/2006 11:55:11 AM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos

simplistic bullshit


Yes, he's totally off here. If I had to say, I'd label your bullshit sophisticated.

What it all boils down to is this: meatclever and r1 preferred Princess Lea chained to Jabba the Hut, while the Feminists were happy to see her actively leading the rebellion, and of course yes, denying her love / desires for submission to Hans Solo. To some degree Princess Lea suffered from what today's pundits would call "the Caitlyn Complex," but clearly George Lukas showed his Nazi sympathies by empowering her with intelligence, leadership qualities, and that retro Germanesque "frauline" hairdo. Lastly, the light sabers were just pure homo erotica demonstrating the whole male-to-male Oedipus complex & "crossing of swords" needs throughout the story.

The family studies center in Ann Arbor Michigan interviewd and polled over 10,000 women after seeing the Star Wars trilogy, and those most afflicted by its feminist neo Nazi propaganda showed higher tendencies toward divorce, alcohol abuse, obesity, and a drastically less orgasmic sex life.

So upon further reflection, I have to agree with the tribalists here who believe MAN, not woman, is the "Natural" king of the hill. Any other conclusion makes one an Empire sympathiser and a dark sided, malelovant hater of the free world.

(in reply to amayos)
Profile   Post #: 284
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/23/2006 12:07:35 PM   
IndigoDadesi


Posts: 185
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The family studies center in Ann Arbor Michigan interviewd and polled over 10,000 women after seeing the Star Wars trilogy, and those most afflicted by its feminist neo Nazi propaganda showed higher tendencies toward divorce, alcohol abuse, obesity, and a drastically less orgasmic sex life.



So what are you suggesting? Surely not that Star wars causes divorce, alcohol abuse and obesity.... Seriously though, perhaps this is too big of a jump for me, but what was the study trying to suggest in their findings?

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 285
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/23/2006 12:32:12 PM   
amayos


Posts: 1553
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: New England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
Nobody will ever be stupid enough to want to marry me.


I relate to and fully voice that sentiment often.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 286
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/23/2006 12:35:01 PM   
MrDiscipline44


Posts: 1776
Joined: 1/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
A woman can't be a women, if she is unwilling to let a man be a man.
 

I think this is the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you say.

_____________________________

If you love somebody, you have to be willing to break them.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Have you slapped your slave today?

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 287
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/23/2006 12:41:58 PM   
amayos


Posts: 1553
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: New England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

What it all boils down to is this: meatclever and r1 preferred Princess Lea chained to Jabba the Hut, while the Feminists were happy to see her actively leading the rebellion, and of course yes, denying her love / desires for submission to Hans Solo. To some degree Princess Lea suffered from what today's pundits would call "the Caitlyn Complex," but clearly George Lukas showed his Nazi sympathies by empowering her with intelligence, leadership qualities, and that retro Germanesque "frauline" hairdo. Lastly, the light sabers were just pure homo erotica demonstrating the whole male-to-male Oedipus complex & "crossing of swords" needs throughout the story.

The family studies center in Ann Arbor Michigan interviewd and polled over 10,000 women after seeing the Star Wars trilogy, and those most afflicted by its feminist neo Nazi propaganda showed higher tendencies toward divorce, alcohol abuse, obesity, and a drastically less orgasmic sex life.

So upon further reflection, I have to agree with the tribalists here who believe MAN, not woman, is the "Natural" king of the hill. Any other conclusion makes one an Empire sympathiser and a dark sided, malelovant hater of the free world.


And you called my bs sophisticated?

Be careful, cloudboy. If my memory serves me correctly, Timothy Mcvey used the Star Wars analogy motif to justify detonating a building of innocent people.

< Message edited by amayos -- 3/23/2006 12:46:04 PM >

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 288
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/23/2006 2:36:29 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrDiscipline44

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
A woman can't be a women, if she is unwilling to let a man be a man.
 

I think this is the most intelligent thing I've ever seen you say.


When women forge their own 'gender identity', in the way the feminists recommend, they become unattractive to men - or attractive only as sex objects, not as individual persons. And when men cease to be gentlemen, they become unattractive to women. Sexual companionship then goes from the world.
Roger Scruton 
  City Journal, Autumn 1999 

(in reply to MrDiscipline44)
Profile   Post #: 289
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 4:36:43 AM   
Tristan


Posts: 330
Joined: 5/31/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Yes, rherotic is used by social movements and individuals to influence others all the time -- again, not specific to any one group or individual.


All that I'm hearing on this discussion is rherotic.  Unless I missed a post or two, I've not heard anyone who supports feminism acknowledge the gender roles for both men and women need to change and adapt to the environment of the modern world. 

I've heard plenty of discussions on how women have been wronged throughout history and how men need to adapt to the needs of women.  I've not heard any supporter of feminism talk about how women and society need to adapt to the needs of men just as men and society have adapted to the needs of women.  Access to children post divorce, reproductive rights, work, education of boys, life expecancy / mens health, and stress are all equivilent issues that need to be discussed.  I can go on with the list, but what's the point.  I'll I'm going to hear is rhetoric as a response.  If you are interested in learning more, do an internet search.  The information is out there.

These changes are a two way street, and there were plenty of good posts describing how there is a need today to discuss the equivilent of the feminist issues discussed a generation ago.  Let's face it, if you have children, you have a better than 50% chance of having boys (that is if you have the average 2.8 kids or what ever the current average is today).  If you have personal issues that prevent you from listening, at least listen for your kids.  There really are issues that need to be discussed without rhetoric or negative steriotypes.  The problem with feminism is it goes one way and only one way.   There is nothing more to write on the subject. 

Tristan

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 290
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 5:02:01 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
Slightly off topic but clearly a related topic so I'll just add this post here. I listened to an interesting programme on the BBC world service the other day about how the balance of child birth between male and female children fluctuates. There are several theories for reasons why variations occur.

Women understress and dominant women tend to produce male offspring, this is due to levels of testosterone which rises when a woman is sstressed. Also the point during the cycle when a child is conceived makes a difference. I'm sure most people know about this.

The most interesting point being that after major wars such as WWI and WWII, the birth rate of boys went up from 102 boys for every 100 girls born to over 113 for every 100 girls born. Why this happens is unknown but certainly the idea of a stressed community after a conflict and the rise in frequency of sex as troops return home I guess must play a part.

It does appear that psychology as an affect on biology which I guess is no surprise but the interesting thing I find is that the ratio of boys to girls goes up and down depending on the need of a society, which puts the male/female issue firmly in its place. Whatever psycho-biologic mechanics regulates the ratio of males to females, the species comes first and whatever our politics we can all go and suck, we aren't as individual as we like to think.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 3/24/2006 5:06:25 AM >

(in reply to Tristan)
Profile   Post #: 291
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 6:41:03 AM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

There are two things you can bet on:

1. No man in my life, will ever have to iron for themselves, cook for themselves, or be told by me that they can't go enjoy doing guy things with the other men. A woman can't be a women, if she is unwilling to let a man be a man.

2. Nobody will ever be stupid enough to want to marry me.


That second one seems like a very sad statement to make about yourself.



_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 292
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 6:42:30 AM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: IndigoDadesi

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The family studies center in Ann Arbor Michigan interviewd and polled over 10,000 women after seeing the Star Wars trilogy, and those most afflicted by its feminist neo Nazi propaganda showed higher tendencies toward divorce, alcohol abuse, obesity, and a drastically less orgasmic sex life.



So what are you suggesting? Surely not that Star wars causes divorce, alcohol abuse and obesity.... Seriously though, perhaps this is too big of a jump for me, but what was the study trying to suggest in their findings?



I'm thinking the entire post is satire.....



_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to IndigoDadesi)
Profile   Post #: 293
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 7:09:00 AM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristan

quote:

Yes, rherotic is used by social movements and individuals to influence others all the time -- again, not specific to any one group or individual.


All that I'm hearing on this discussion is rherotic. Unless I missed a post or two, I've not heard anyone who supports feminism acknowledge the gender roles for both men and women need to change and adapt to the environment of the modern world.

I've heard plenty of discussions on how women have been wronged throughout history and how men need to adapt to the needs of women. I've not heard any supporter of feminism talk about how women and society need to adapt to the needs of men just as men and society have adapted to the needs of women. Access to children post divorce, reproductive rights, work, education of boys, life expecancy / mens health, and stress are all equivilent issues that need to be discussed. I can go on with the list, but what's the point. I'll I'm going to hear is rhetoric as a response. If you are interested in learning more, do an internet search. The information is out there.

These changes are a two way street, and there were plenty of good posts describing how there is a need today to discuss the equivilent of the feminist issues discussed a generation ago. Let's face it, if you have children, you have a better than 50% chance of having boys (that is if you have the average 2.8 kids or what ever the current average is today). If you have personal issues that prevent you from listening, at least listen for your kids. There really are issues that need to be discussed without rhetoric or negative steriotypes. The problem with feminism is it goes one way and only one way. There is nothing more to write on the subject.

Tristan


Actually I brought up several examples of how inequality affects both men and women -- but I don't think this "discussion" about the evils or goods of feminism was ever very serious because from the start it was over-generalized and emotional.

If this had been a discussion of how specific statements from different feminism groups and individuals relates to, (oh, let's go crazy here and look at the board itself) BDSM then that would be a topic worth discussing, in my opinion, in a serious fashion.

Frankly since I don't see how this Sutton money-focused use of "female supermacy" relates to feminism and since I didn't see a serious attack on "feminism" only a stereotyped generalized rhetorical treatment, I felt it was appropriate to point that out. I have found that those who focus on generalized attacks or generalized defenses are rarely interested in context and specificity. (It has been argued that such generalized approaches are part of how the human brain processes information, defending the paradigms in which the world around the individual lives.)

As for Sutton and her ideas of "female supermacy" -- since I don't know her enough to say whether or not she actually believes it, I can only say that must make her money (she has a website and at least one book about it). Who buys her books? Who is attracted to her website? Why is this an attraction for some people?

I'm hoping that the OP was an attempt to get discussion about a particular book but it didn't turn out that way at all. Now if someone wishes to send me a copy of her book I can actually comment on it in much greater detail. Since its not the book isn't on a topic I'm personally turned-on by or interested in its not something I'd buy for myself.

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to Tristan)
Profile   Post #: 294
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 7:13:20 AM   
clodivs


Posts: 29
Joined: 7/29/2004
Status: offline
I've always thought that chauvinists, both male and female, are, well, silly, for lack of a better term.

(in reply to Aimtoplease101)
Profile   Post #: 295
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 7:26:14 AM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline
repeated posted deleted....

< Message edited by thetammyjo -- 3/24/2006 7:27:19 AM >


_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to Tristan)
Profile   Post #: 296
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 7:26:57 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
I'm curious what do you think feminism is and what are it's current goals. I've read through this whole thing and no one defending feminism has specified exactly what the modern feminists are doing. I'm guessing you might know such specifics since you seem to be the only one defending it.

Like what current feminist related legislation are they pushing.
or anything real beyond these generalities. I appreciate the example earlier about the draft that showed how men were refused the right to not participate in war. But that would be males lacking rights not women. So, what laws are feminists trying to change. Or is it like I suggested earlier, just a group that wants to change perceptions of women/mens roles in society. And if its the former it doesn't appear to be working well anymore.

I'm just curious because you've seemed pretty rational when I read your other posts on the board. And the whole feminism issue seems like a movement without a defined purpose beyond a catch phrase(equality). So, maybe if we had some specifics of what feminism is actually doing today(not back in the fifties), then we could more clearly get a  picture of the movements goals. Like specific policies they are lobbying to get changed that specificly relates to unequal treatment of women. I'm willing to concede the only feminists I've ever met were lesbians(not saying all lesbians are feminists), and/or militants. So, if there is another universe of feminists I'd like to be informed of what they are working on.

It doesn't mean I'll agree with it, but at the very least it probably won't be as bad as the ones I've been exposed to or for that matter what others have been exposed to.

Thanks

(in reply to thetammyjo)
Profile   Post #: 297
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 7:30:14 AM   
Cuckme4Life


Posts: 168
Joined: 7/8/2005
From: MentallyDeranged,Tn.
Status: offline
Elise Sutton is certainly entitled to her views and makes valid points obviously. However humans are way too complex to fit so neatly in nice packages. Some people are inherently submissive and others inherently dominant. Male and female alike. And many have both sides to their psyches. I am quite dominant in social settings but around the right Dominant woman, my submissive side come sout with flying colors. Personally I think we hone ourselves naturally to the roles we wish to play in relationships. On another curve , Dominant women`s pheromones are overwhelming. Thats natures design for sure. 

(in reply to clodivs)
Profile   Post #: 298
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 8:14:33 AM   
thetammyjo


Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I'm curious what do you think feminism is and what are it's current goals. I've read through this whole thing and no one defending feminism has specified exactly what the modern feminists are doing. I'm guessing you might know such specifics since you seem to be the only one defending it.

Like what current feminist related legislation are they pushing.
or anything real beyond these generalities. I appreciate the example earlier about the draft that showed how men were refused the right to not participate in war. But that would be males lacking rights not women. So, what laws are feminists trying to change. Or is it like I suggested earlier, just a group that wants to change perceptions of women/mens roles in society. And if its the former it doesn't appear to be working well anymore.

I'm just curious because you've seemed pretty rational when I read your other posts on the board. And the whole feminism issue seems like a movement without a defined purpose beyond a catch phrase(equality). So, maybe if we had some specifics of what feminism is actually doing today(not back in the fifties), then we could more clearly get a picture of the movements goals. Like specific policies they are lobbying to get changed that specificly relates to unequal treatment of women. I'm willing to concede the only feminists I've ever met were lesbians(not saying all lesbians are feminists), and/or militants. So, if there is another universe of feminists I'd like to be informed of what they are working on.

It doesn't mean I'll agree with it, but at the very least it probably won't be as bad as the ones I've been exposed to or for that matter what others have been exposed to.

Thanks


Which particular type of feminism do you wish to know about? Which organization(s)?

I can't speak for most of them because I'm a member of a feminism organization any more -- I left NOW after fighting one statement from them that bashed SM. Yes, it was voted on and most members at the time of the vote sided with anti-SM viewpoints. After fighting it for a few years I decided it was better to focus on BDSM education than to try and change the minds of an organization which seems primarily focused on reproductive issues for the past decade.

It also depends on who puts the label of "feminist" on an organization or an individual; that's the same for any label such as a religious or political label. Those who are opposed to whatever they call feminism will use it negatively, those who support it will use it positively.

Put most simply, I'd say that feminism is about trying to correct inequality based on sex. How that plays out varies from person to person and group to group.

There an article in the new "Bitch" magazine (the 10th edition) that does a good job of defining several branches of feminism though the variety I've encountered both in the rhetoric and in people is much much much greater. Just a warning that "Bitch" itself has an agenda as many magazines do but I was surprised at how even-handed they seemed to be with their facts for the different branches though I had questions about a few points.

Your question is huge, NeedToUseYou, and frankly it would take multiple semesters of study of a variety of fields to really get a good grasp on things. You can ask me anything you want but let me focus on one branch.

In terms of feminist organizations the ones that get the most media attention are "liberal" ones. "Liberal" here is a term created by those who study social movements -- political scienticists, sociologists, historians, speach/communication studies, etc. Here it means that the focus on using the political and legal system to pursue their goals. So when you see commericals against laws or for laws, supporting political candidates, rallying at the White House, or raising money for legal cases, those would be "liberal feminism". In terms of organizations these would be your NOW, NARAL, FeministMajority, League of Women Voters, etc.

Now the tricky part is that these group, of course, don't call themselves "liberal feminism" but instead just "feminists" as they attempt to universalize their approach and widen their base. This claim would be what RealOne said made his mother angry. Those people opposed to legal or political changes (or the idea of equality perhaps) might also just say "feminists" as a way to attack the basic ideas OR they might coin other terms like feminazis or call them "radical' or "extreme" or "lesbians". Both sides use rhetorical devices to either create or resist change.

Within each side though are individual with their own personal agendas. So you may have several members of group that see issues differently and who want to pursue different venues -- one might want to run for office, another to give money to a male candidate, another who tackles an issue in the courts, and another who gathers up a people to march on Washington.

In short, when you ask what are feminsts trying to do the only honest and realistic answer I can give you is to either go into teacher mode (as I have) or ask for more specific questions.

(just a side note that in most of the fields of study which coin the terms I'm using "liberal" refers to the idea that people should be involved in the legal and political structure. In that sense then a "conservative" movement which funded candidates, tried to get larger numbers involved, and pushed for legal changes would be following a "liberal" approach to their problems)

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 299
RE: Is Elise Sutton right? - 3/24/2006 8:42:10 AM   
stephi


Posts: 20
Joined: 9/18/2005
Status: offline
The male is supposed to be strong and handle all the power in our society, i for one am grateful that Ladies come forward and say that They are truly superior.  It is my theory and i am convinced of it.  Who REALLY handles everything in life until we are "grown up" and go out in the world to make our "mark"?  Mother.  Mom.  A LADY!  i bow before you Dear Lady.  stephi

(in reply to Aimtoplease101)
Profile   Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   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 © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.523