Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Feminism


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> RE: Feminism Page: <<   < prev  32 33 34 [35] 36   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Feminism - 11/7/2009 5:52:20 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


FR to others:

A short note on why we still need feminism. 

A very large man was hitting a woman at a local railway station.  I, and another man, went forward to stop him.  He turned to me and said, "It's all right mate, she's my girlfriend".  Then a veritable gang of coppers turned up to arrest him.  He honestly looked astonished when they didn't accept his explanation.


See, to me, that has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with enforcement of battery laws.

If you focus on the "feminist aspect" what do you do with the mother beating the crap out of her young son, who tells the cop "it's all right love, I'm his mother."

There's no inherently feminist aspect in "it's wrong to beat up unwilling people, even if they are family members, friends, or sex partners."

I know you're offline for a week (hoping it's a vacation taking you away, and a good one at that!) but I did just want to point this out.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 681
RE: Feminism - 11/7/2009 6:01:50 PM   
zephyroftheNorth


Posts: 8159
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: The Great Frozen North
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


FR to others:

A short note on why we still need feminism. 

A very large man was hitting a woman at a local railway station.  I, and another man, went forward to stop him.  He turned to me and said, "It's all right mate, she's my girlfriend".  Then a veritable gang of coppers turned up to arrest him.  He honestly looked astonished when they didn't accept his explanation.


See, to me, that has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with enforcement of battery laws.

If you focus on the "feminist aspect" what do you do with the mother beating the crap out of her young son, who tells the cop "it's all right love, I'm his mother."

There's no inherently feminist aspect in "it's wrong to beat up unwilling people, even if they are family members, friends, or sex partners."

I know you're offline for a week (hoping it's a vacation taking you away, and a good one at that!) but I did just want to point this out.


I agree with you 100% Bella, it's  a "it's okay we're in a relationship thing.

BTW, I've been reading your blog, I love it! You write extremely well.

zeph


_____________________________

And there's a smile when the pain comes
The pain gonna make ev'rything alright ~ Black Crows

Team Troll Trollop
Member: Cocksuckers For World Peace
Charter member: Lance's Fag Hags
Member: Subbie Mafia
Member: Hibbie's Hotties

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 682
RE: Feminism - 11/7/2009 6:25:33 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
What you are referring to here, and what I suspect Shakti may be finding so objectionable, is infantilization - which, like it or not, is a rider on paternal politics, just as male infantilization is a rider on maternal politics - both sides essentially object to it, as if it were all a question of who get to be infantilized from a strict institutional, social policy perspective.

Shakti's arguement holds more water, from an empirical basis: there is more empirical evidence of feminine infanitilization historically, and more current attempts to shape institutional policy in this direction, whereas your more conservative (paternal) fears tend not to hold up well under scrutiny, i.e., regulation, PC, which they tend to characterize as infantilizing and react to violently as a class of restriction (the "nanny" state), although in most cases, these are simply prudent and progressive social-economic policies, as a class.

i.e., conservative/paternal oppression fantasies tend to be more emotional than real, the "damage" abstract, whereas feminist fears of oppression have very distinct and well documented antecedents, the consequences very much corporeal, the damage empirically assessable.


I do agree, that the thought of going back to a time where women were property of their husbands or weren't allowed to vote is a horrifying proposition, but I think right now what we have is a false "either/or" dichotomy. Either we keep on pushing up this hill (feminism) or we will automatically start to roll back down it.

The problem with my position, at least relating to feminism, is that I don't have an easy answer. I can't say "we need to do this, this, and this, and then society will be totally wonderful for both men and women." I don't have a ten step plan that will lead to utopia, all I can say is hey, wait a second, let's look where we're going before we keep sprinting toward it.

Decisions have consequences. Take the pill for example. It was lauded as a great advance for the feminist movement, now women had control over when and if they got pregnant. Right?

Well, not so much.

I'm using UK stats because they were a lot easier to find so please correct me if there's a huge disparity between them and US statistics which I've been using up to this point.

In 1961 the birth control pill was made available to all UK women. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/4/newsid_3228000/3228207.stm

In 1960 the percentage of out of wedlock babies was 5.2% http://demoblography.blogspot.com/2007/06/percentage-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in.html

In 2005, 42.3% of babies were born out of wedlock http://www.soompi.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40024&mode=threaded&pid=1842093

I know that there are quite a few financially successful women who are reaching an age where they want to have a child, and as they don't have a husband they choose to do it on their own. But those women are the minority - the majority of out of wedlock babies weren't planned.

Repeat - since the birth control was made public, and lauded as a way to give women more control over whether or not they become pregnant, the percentage of *unplanned* births has increased nearly eightfold.

Now please don't take this as me saying "the pill should be banned' because I don't think it should be. What I do think however is that we do need to look back at the past, compare it to the present, and incorporate elements of both into our future. Blindly pushing forward and uprooting everything we think is bad is not working. Our gains are matched, and sometimes bettered, by our losses.

If I had a simple bulletpointed plan of action saying what we should do it would be easier for me to argue this, but I really don't. My game plan is just fix what we have before pushing forward. We don't have to go back to the dark ages...but we also don't have to discount everything they did right just because they were the ones who did it.

(in reply to xssve)
Profile   Post #: 683
RE: Feminism - 11/7/2009 6:36:55 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


FR to others:

A short note on why we still need feminism. 

A very large man was hitting a woman at a local railway station.  I, and another man, went forward to stop him.  He turned to me and said, "It's all right mate, she's my girlfriend".  Then a veritable gang of coppers turned up to arrest him.  He honestly looked astonished when they didn't accept his explanation.


See, to me, that has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with enforcement of battery laws.

If you focus on the "feminist aspect" what do you do with the mother beating the crap out of her young son, who tells the cop "it's all right love, I'm his mother."

There's no inherently feminist aspect in "it's wrong to beat up unwilling people, even if they are family members, friends, or sex partners."

I know you're offline for a week (hoping it's a vacation taking you away, and a good one at that!) but I did just want to point this out.


I agree with you 100% Bella, it's  a "it's okay we're in a relationship thing.

BTW, I've been reading your blog, I love it! You write extremely well.

zeph



Thanks hon! I've been totally spazzing on writing...it's a lot easier (at least for me) to have a discussion on a forum than it is for me to write a whole thesis-article-conclusion on my own. I never know how to begin them :(

(in reply to zephyroftheNorth)
Profile   Post #: 684
RE: Feminism - 11/7/2009 8:13:31 PM   
Roselaure


Posts: 672
Joined: 4/12/2008
Status: offline
I usually don't venture into "Ask a Mistress" too often.  I'm not a Mistress and have no aspirations to be one, I also don't have a Mistress or have any aspiration to have one.  But the feminism thread was frankly too much for me to resist, so I've spent the last couple of hours wading through it all.  there is so much to call bullshit on, but for me it all boils down to this.  I am a woman, a submissive with a Dominant who is a man.  I am a proud and ardent feminist, and also a football fan.  I am many things.  Feminism as I define it is the idea that men and women should be equal under the law. I don't see personally how any sane person could possibly believe otherwise, but I am sure that some do.  I don't change my own tires, that's why I have AAA, andI don't personally care if society has the expectation of me that i should.  So what?  What do societies expectations have to do with my choices?  Not a god damned thing.  People are going to judge you in life, that's just the way it is, the trick, as I see is is in not giving a Tinker's damn what anyone thinks except for those few people whose good opinion of you means something. You want to stay home and raise your children?  Great!  You want to go back to work the next day?  Great again.  It's not for me to make those choices for other people.  I think women as a whole spend too much time both judging each other and taking offense at that judgment.  Don't worry so much about what a bunch of people you don't know think.


_____________________________

Once conform, once do what other people do because they do it, and lethargy steals over all the finer nerves and faculties of the soul.
-Virginia Woolf

(in reply to SomethingCatchy)
Profile   Post #: 685
RE: Feminism - 11/7/2009 9:34:28 PM   
cloudboy


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

How would you summarize this thread? Was there a war of ideologies at play?

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 686
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 5:02:21 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
Less so a war of ideologies and moreso a war of personalities. Which quickly led to a distinct lacking of personal self control, obvious displays of immaturity, pathethic personal attacks and obvious desires to find more to disagree about than agree. All in the name of proving "I am right and because you do not agree with me 100%, nothing you say or think has ANY validity, you are an idiot and I will attempt to destroy you!" Rather like our government.

That is just my brief take on the matter.

< Message edited by LaTigresse -- 11/8/2009 5:04:17 AM >


_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 687
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 7:23:52 AM   
Lucienne


Posts: 1175
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Decisions have consequences. Take the pill for example. It was lauded as a great advance for the feminist movement, now women had control over when and if they got pregnant. Right?

Well, not so much.

I'm using UK stats because they were a lot easier to find so please correct me if there's a huge disparity between them and US statistics which I've been using up to this point.

In 1961 the birth control pill was made available to all UK women. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/4/newsid_3228000/3228207.stm

In 1960 the percentage of out of wedlock babies was 5.2% http://demoblography.blogspot.com/2007/06/percentage-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in.html

In 2005, 42.3% of babies were born out of wedlock http://www.soompi.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40024&mode=threaded&pid=1842093

I know that there are quite a few financially successful women who are reaching an age where they want to have a child, and as they don't have a husband they choose to do it on their own. But those women are the minority - the majority of out of wedlock babies weren't planned.

Repeat - since the birth control was made public, and lauded as a way to give women more control over whether or not they become pregnant, the percentage of *unplanned* births has increased nearly eightfold.



It isn't even necessary to reach the "correlation does not equal causation" step of criticism to toss this argument out the window. Even if one accepts your premise that the majority of out-of-wedlock births were unplanned, it still does not convert that statistic into a measure of the number of unplanned pregnancies in the UK. What it measures is the severe decrease in the number of people who felt that an unplanned pregnancy required them to get married. There's no proof of more unplanned pregnancy- only proof of fewer marriages related to pregnancy. You may find that an unfortunate result and argue that the pill is to blame. If so, make that argument.

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 688
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 7:26:12 AM   
Lucienne


Posts: 1175
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


How would you summarize this thread? Was there a war of ideologies at play?


Save the cheerleader. Save the world.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 689
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 2:47:27 PM   
stiv2009


Posts: 19
Joined: 10/4/2009
Status: offline
Where is Elisabella's blog? I'd like to read it too! - Steve

(in reply to zephyroftheNorth)
Profile   Post #: 690
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 3:19:14 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


How would you summarize this thread? Was there a war of ideologies at play?


I agree with LaT, ideologies played a part but personalities more so. Frankly several of the posts dropped to a new low for vitriol, that makes it more personal than ideological in my opinion.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 691
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 4:33:50 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
<snip>
A very large man was hitting a woman at a local railway station.  I, and another man, went forward to stop him.  He turned to me and said, "It's all right mate, she's my girlfriend".  Then a veritable gang of coppers turned up to arrest him.  He honestly looked astonished when they didn't accept his explanation.

I had an almost identical experience (except for the coppers) and other similar ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

See, to me, that has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with enforcement of battery laws.

<snip>

There's no inherently feminist aspect in "it's wrong to beat up unwilling people, even if they are family members, friends, or sex partners."
<snip>

Disagree: Underlying the man's attitude in PeonForHer's anecdote is  an assumption that his girlfriend is his property, therefore his treatment of her is outside the law.  That attitude -- women as property (i.e., female property rights = same rights as property) -- especially as once encoded in law, has been and remains very much a feminist issue.


< Message edited by eihwaz -- 11/8/2009 4:46:52 PM >

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 692
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 4:49:51 PM   
GoDolphins


Posts: 78
Joined: 3/26/2009
Status: offline
I don't know, I've known women who thought it was perfectly okay for them to smack their boyfriends if the boyfriend did something they didn't like. I don't really think that legitimizes a whole movement for men in itself. The man needs a serious attitude change and some time in jail for assault though.

I do think feminism was necessary though, and there are still areas where women face sexism, so I wouldn't say that feminism is totally unnecessary anymore like some people have on here. But feminism could definitely use a change in focus. Listening to many feminists I'd think I could buy and sell women as property here in the US. Women have never been considered property in the US (other than slaves, but that was a racial thing as many black men were also slaves).

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 693
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 4:52:54 PM   
zephyroftheNorth


Posts: 8159
Joined: 10/5/2009
From: The Great Frozen North
Status: offline
CMail her, I'm surre she will give you the addy

Zeph


_____________________________

And there's a smile when the pain comes
The pain gonna make ev'rything alright ~ Black Crows

Team Troll Trollop
Member: Cocksuckers For World Peace
Charter member: Lance's Fag Hags
Member: Subbie Mafia
Member: Hibbie's Hotties

(in reply to stiv2009)
Profile   Post #: 694
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 5:31:36 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
<snip>
A very large man was hitting a woman at a local railway station.  I, and another man, went forward to stop him.  He turned to me and said, "It's all right mate, she's my girlfriend".  Then a veritable gang of coppers turned up to arrest him.  He honestly looked astonished when they didn't accept his explanation.

I had an almost identical experience (except for the coppers) and other similar ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

See, to me, that has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with enforcement of battery laws.

<snip>

There's no inherently feminist aspect in "it's wrong to beat up unwilling people, even if they are family members, friends, or sex partners."
<snip>

Disagree: Underlying the man's attitude in PeonForHer's anecdote is  an assumption that his girlfriend is his property, therefore his treatment of her is outside the law.  That attitude -- women as property (i.e., female property rights = same rights as property) -- especially as once encoded in law, has been and remains very much a feminist issue.



So then what "ism" should be made for mothers who beat their children and think it's okay because they're a mother?

Or in other words, why doesn't "domestic violence" cover it all? Men who beat their wives, girlfriends who throw plates at their boyfriend's head, women and men who physically abuse their children, even sociopathic siblings who torture the other kids in the family...two words. Domestic violence.

Anyone who beats up someone they love (outside of BDSM/consenting context) is a disturbed individual. Feminism is a social movement. Do you see the incongruity here between saying "we need to have a social movement to fix mainstream society because the deranged people are doing deranged things"?

In other words, if it was a case of 'patriarchy' and not a case of disturbed people who think it's okay to abuse their partner, why are there women who attack men?

It's an individual issue, not a social one.

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 695
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 5:33:19 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Decisions have consequences. Take the pill for example. It was lauded as a great advance for the feminist movement, now women had control over when and if they got pregnant. Right?

Well, not so much.

I'm using UK stats because they were a lot easier to find so please correct me if there's a huge disparity between them and US statistics which I've been using up to this point.

In 1961 the birth control pill was made available to all UK women. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/4/newsid_3228000/3228207.stm

In 1960 the percentage of out of wedlock babies was 5.2% http://demoblography.blogspot.com/2007/06/percentage-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in.html

In 2005, 42.3% of babies were born out of wedlock http://www.soompi.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40024&mode=threaded&pid=1842093

I know that there are quite a few financially successful women who are reaching an age where they want to have a child, and as they don't have a husband they choose to do it on their own. But those women are the minority - the majority of out of wedlock babies weren't planned.

Repeat - since the birth control was made public, and lauded as a way to give women more control over whether or not they become pregnant, the percentage of *unplanned* births has increased nearly eightfold.



It isn't even necessary to reach the "correlation does not equal causation" step of criticism to toss this argument out the window. Even if one accepts your premise that the majority of out-of-wedlock births were unplanned, it still does not convert that statistic into a measure of the number of unplanned pregnancies in the UK. What it measures is the severe decrease in the number of people who felt that an unplanned pregnancy required them to get married. There's no proof of more unplanned pregnancy- only proof of fewer marriages related to pregnancy. You may find that an unfortunate result and argue that the pill is to blame. If so, make that argument.



Hmm that is true, it could just be a fewer marriages thing...I have to go get my hair done (OMG GOING BLONDE WTF) but I will look up Kinseyesque stats to see if there's a difference in people who admit to having sex outside of marriage. Obviously they won't be as spot on accurate as these but it will see if there's a difference.

(in reply to Lucienne)
Profile   Post #: 696
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 5:38:04 PM   
Lucienne


Posts: 1175
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella
I have to go get my hair done (OMG GOING BLONDE WTF)


May I recommend dirty with golden highlights?

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 697
RE: Feminism - 11/8/2009 6:41:10 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
<snip>
A very large man was hitting a woman at a local railway station.  I, and another man, went forward to stop him.  He turned to me and said, "It's all right mate, she's my girlfriend".  Then a veritable gang of coppers turned up to arrest him.  He honestly looked astonished when they didn't accept his explanation.

I had an almost identical experience (except for the coppers) and other similar ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

See, to me, that has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with enforcement of battery laws.

<snip>

There's no inherently feminist aspect in "it's wrong to beat up unwilling people, even if they are family members, friends, or sex partners."
<snip>

Disagree: Underlying the man's attitude in PeonForHer's anecdote is  an assumption that his girlfriend is his property, therefore his treatment of her is outside the law.  That attitude -- women as property (i.e., female property rights = same rights as property) -- especially as once encoded in law, has been and remains very much a feminist issue.



Or in other words, why doesn't "domestic violence" cover it all?

Ideally, in a gender equal society, it would.  And I certainly agree that all domestic violence should be criminal.  But historically it was legal (or at least quasi-legal) for husbands to beat and even rape their wives.  Committing such violent acts against other men or other men's wives was a crime.  Thus, women were very specifically not protected by the law (whether manifest as statute, common law, or law enforcement practice) based on their gender and marital status. This history is why domestic violence against women is, historically at least, a specifically  feminist issue.

We can debate whether it remains so given changes in the law brought about by feminists (IMO it does).

The legal exclusion of protection of women's personal safety in relation to their husbands is what qualifies this as a case of 'patriarchy'. As you've stated yourself, women continue to suffer such conditions in many societies even today.



(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 698
RE: Feminism - 11/9/2009 12:29:31 AM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella
I have to go get my hair done (OMG GOING BLONDE WTF)


May I recommend dirty with golden highlights?



I'm just going all over light golden but it's going to take a few sessions of foils to get it all so right now it just looks frosted.

Better than before, but not quite what I want. Ignore my spotty mirror and funky peeling nails plz :P

(in reply to Lucienne)
Profile   Post #: 699
RE: Feminism - 11/10/2009 4:26:01 PM   
cloudboy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Less so a war of ideologies and moreso a war of personalities. Which quickly led to a distinct lacking of personal self control, obvious displays of immaturity, pathethic personal attacks and obvious desires to find more to disagree about than agree. All in the name of proving "I am right and because you do not agree with me 100%, nothing you say or think has ANY validity, you are an idiot and I will attempt to destroy you!" Rather like our government.

That is just my brief take on the matter.


A drunken key-board brawl of sorts....

Thank you for the concise summary. I see that Politesub agrees, too.

(in reply to LaTigresse)
Profile   Post #: 700
Page:   <<   < prev  32 33 34 [35] 36   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress >> RE: Feminism Page: <<   < prev  32 33 34 [35] 36   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

0.070