RE: Feminism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress



Message

Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/18/2009 6:08:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Using fast reply

I have to say that while I've gotten to the point of being able to accept and support that there are women who wish to serve a dominant male and that there are a few dominant men I can respect..........I find it disgusting that there are a few morons that seem to feel it is "natural" for all, that it is somehow "the way" and everyone that does not subscribe to the same is to be rediculed. These are the people that make utter asses and fools of themselves.


Like I said above, I have no problem with people being feminists in their own homes and private lives.

It's when they want to change society to fit in with their desires that I get annoyed.

They're on one side of the spectrum, I'm on the other side. There's only one society. It's got to be either the society they want or the society I want. Like Shakti said, she'll do her thing and I'll do mine. We'll both work to create the society in which we want to live.

That's really all it comes down to.


Well the above does not say much about the society you live in. The society I live in, is much more of a feminist leaning that some male dominated utopia you seem to favour.


Strangely enough, even though I'm an anti feminist, I'm not in favour of male domination. Rather I believe that men and women are equal but different and that they each have their own spheres in which they excel.

Heres a pretty well written paper that gives an idea of the various strengths and weaknesses men and women have http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Basically it says that neither gender is superior to the other, that if that were true nature would have phased out one or the other set of characteristics, but that men and women have different strengths, which in turn lead to different weaknesses, and that their skill sets are complementary. It says women tend to interact mostly in small intimate close knit groups while men have large social networks of acquaintences, and that women tend to do what is necessary for the survival of the species while men have created cultures and civilizations and basically they innovate items of comfort and luxury.

It frames the argument in a biological context, saying that women tend to gravitate toward the average within one standard deviation, while men tend to have a higher percentage at the extremes - the extremes of both genius and retardation. There are more male CEO's; there are more men in prison. More women start small businesses (close knit network) and more men start large corporations (large social network) because biologically men have to differentiate themselves and prove themselves in order to make offspring, and so they're more likely to take highly dangerous risks, as opposed to women who pretty much just have to offer themselves and they'll get laid.

Basically to sum it up, most of the innovations in modern culture were created by men, and the reason certain segments of society are patriarchal (corporate business, politics, military) is because it's an innate part of man, rather than woman, to have the large social networks, the aggression and exploratory drive, and the desire to prove oneself. It also, ironically, ties into this thread by saying that the idea of pitting the men and women of the same culture against each other is ridiculous, that most cultural change happens with men fighting (ie war, or two football teams) while the women play the supportive role that allows them to do that (ie maintaining the home, or cheerleading) and really, it's been the successful model so far.

So no I don't believe in complete male dominance, I do however believe it's natural for men to excel at the systems that they themselves created. And asking "why aren't there male cheerleaders for female football teams" is overlooking the obvious - men don't want to cheer women on, they want to be the aggressors. And women don't want to be the aggressors, they want to be the stabilizing force, the ones the men come home to, the ones who go out there and cheer to inspire the men, to show them what they are fighting for - their women.

I think that there should be more credit given to the female spheres (raising children, keeping a home, solidifying close knit ties, etc) rather than trying to thrust women into male spheres. IMO that's where feminism is most misguided - rather than elevate women's roles to the same level of respectability, they've just put women in men's roles, and honestly women will always be at a disadvantage simply because the social structures they're now expected to compete in aren't the type of social structures they themselves would forge. They're expected to imitate male personalities in order to succeed, or conversely they expect the social structure of the workplace to change to accomodate their disadvantage. The first option isn't fair to women, and the second option isn't fair to men.

Notice how I didn't say anything about submission or male domination? That's because I don't believe either gender role is inherently superior or inferior. I do however believe that the majority of each gender (obviously there are exceptions in everything - I'm referring to the norm) is better suited for their own gender role.

To give a personal example - my fiance was talking about how he makes sure that he has special skills that differentiate him so that he is less easily replaceable at work. That fits in with the male model of social networks, where anyone is replaceable - it is the skill set and not the person that is rewarded.

I on the other hand view my replaceability as how well I fit into the office, how well I get on with my superiors and coworkers, and how accepted I am - an example of the female model of close-knit ties, where nobody is truly replaceable because it's the person that matters, not just what they bring to the table.

To emphasize, I'm not saying every single woman thinks one way and every single man thinks another way - just that there are evolutionary reasons for these behaviour patters to have developed, and to arbitrarily change those patterns that have shown themselves to be successful places our culture at a higher risk of invasion from outside cultures - either by direct warfare or simply an overwhelming influence.



LaTigresse -> RE: Feminism (10/18/2009 6:36:58 AM)

To assume that there are male and female spheres simply based upon history and numbers is a false premise. To assume that because something was created by one gender it cannot be done or even improved upon by another gender, is narrow minded.



Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/18/2009 7:07:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

To assume that there are male and female spheres simply based upon history and numbers is a false premise. To assume that because something was created by one gender it cannot be done or even improved upon by another gender, is narrow minded.


That depends on how big the numbers are, and how prevalent it is in history.

If it were only a handful of societies, I'd agree. It's not. Virtually every society that made any sort of mark on history had similar division of labor based on gender. Even those societies that developed independently.

I'm not saying women can't succeed in cutthroat business or politics, only that the reason that area is dominated by men is that 1. men created it and 2. since they created it, they created it in such a way to be suited for the archetypal male personality, ie themselves. Sure there are aggressive, cutthroat women, and if they want to go do politics that's fine. But the majority of women are more cooperative than cutthroat, and I think society would do better to appreciate the differences in genders, and to treat them equally (ie cheerleading should be as respectable as football. One's got tight pants, the other's got short skirts, and they're both displaying the athletic prowess of their bodies) and not say that cheering is awful and demeaning and sexist, and that women shouldn't do it and if they want to do sports they should do more masculine sports. Why not appreciate the fact that women like to be supportive.

One of my favourite quotes is "Behind every great man is a good woman" - do you really think a man would have 80-plus hours a week to devote to creating the next Google or Microsoft if he had to come home and do housework and cook? I think the importance of the supporting role is so grossly overlooked by feminists that they actually find the natural choices the female personality gravitates toward to be wrong.

Someone else on this thread said cheerleaders were sexually exploited. I fail to see the exploitation involved in freely made choices. Why is it women have to go off and play football to be respected? It really does disgust me that feminists claim to work in the best interests of women when all they seem to do is celebrate the traditionally male role while dismissing or even degrading the traditionally female role. How can they say they're helping women when they seem to loathe everything that makes us women?



GoDolphins -> RE: Feminism (10/18/2009 11:00:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia

You do realize the exact same thing can be said about, oh, say, the neo-conservatives . . . . . Any group, actually, can be vicious & exclusive . .. . . .

Again, does one allow one person, or one small group, to define all of something like feminism? How about civil rights, the very concept is smashed if someone claiming to be a civil rights person behaves or speaks poorly? Queer rights? Okay, all of you back in the closet cuz one gay man or one lesbian or one small group of same said & did 'bad' things?

How about if we applied this line of thinking to, say, kink? OMG, some guy defined kink in a way that totally bothers & freaks me out, & he insisted I had to see & experience kink in his way alone -- all kink must be bad, then . . . . . .

Yeah, obviously lame & no different than someone using that same tactic on any group . . . . . .


If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I said more than once not all feminists were like that.



leadership527 -> RE: Feminism (10/18/2009 3:35:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia
Again, does one allow one person, or one small group, to define all of something like feminism?

Heh... here's one... How about I let NOBODY define what it is for me. I couldn't give a rats ass about the patriarchy. Nor do I care about cheerleaders. I care about equal opportunity and rights. I want people to have people's rights. What that means is that some people who self-identify as feminists I agree with. Other such people I find to be spiteful, hate-laden creatures. But don't we all get to define feminism? The only other alternative is to allow a handful of intelligentsia somewhere who are no doubt only loosely connected to reality define it for everyone.



Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/18/2009 5:39:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia
Again, does one allow one person, or one small group, to define all of something like feminism?

Heh... here's one... How about I let NOBODY define what it is for me. I couldn't give a rats ass about the patriarchy. Nor do I care about cheerleaders. I care about equal opportunity and rights. I want people to have people's rights. What that means is that some people who self-identify as feminists I agree with. Other such people I find to be spiteful, hate-laden creatures. But don't we all get to define feminism? The only other alternative is to allow a handful of intelligentsia somewhere who are no doubt only loosely connected to reality define it for everyone.



I have a serious problem with equating equal rights to feminism. To me, equal rights = equal legal rights regardless of sex, gender (the two don't always match up), race, ethnicity, religion, age (once you're an adult that is), disability or lack thereof, etc.

Feminism, by its very name, is concerned with womens issues. Not only does it ignore a slew of other criteria that can be used for discrimination, but the disdain feminism shows for Mens' Rights Activists (whose primary causes are things like giving men an equal shot at child custody, or strengthening adoption laws so a baby cant be adopted without the father's consent, or doing the same for abortion laws, etc) shows that they really aren't terribly interested in *equal* rights for men and women, if the law already favors women.



Andalusite -> RE: Feminism (10/18/2009 8:34:37 PM)

ShaktiSama, I don't see how calling other women sexist insults is feminist or unsexist. Even if her partner calls her a "little girl/slut/cunt/etc.", it doesn't give you the right to do so, any more than it entitles you to cane or fist her.

I've dabbled in football and cheerleading, taken classes in martial arts and dance, and competed in gymnastics and track. Claiming I shouldn't do *any* of those things due to my gender, or that men shouldn't do any of them because of theirs, is wrong and unreasonable, and I think very un-feminist. Elisabella is correct that they aren't showing their panties - they're almost certainly wearing underwear beneath their uniform. Do you run around claiming that all women who wear bikinis at the beach or pool are "showing their panties" too? After all, they probably *aren't* wearing anything under it.

Elisabella, some women choose to be in a supportive role, and enjoy more traditionally feminine activities. That's perfectly fine, but women shouldn't be required, legally or socially, to stick to that. I'm a slave to a man, because that is how I respond to him as an individual, not because I am inferior to him or to men in general. Claiming that women ought to be submissive to men in general is really rude and pushy of you.



Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (10/18/2009 8:50:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella
but the disdain feminism shows for Mens' Rights Activists (whose primary causes are things like giving men an equal shot at child custody, or strengthening adoption laws so a baby cant be adopted without the father's consent, or doing the same for abortion laws, etc)


Your examples cross a very broad range. Child custody (open question) to adoption (dad has constitutional rights unless they've been formally terminated) to abortion (wow, way to turn shit up to eleven because there is no way under our existing constitution that guys have "rights" to say anything about whether or not a woman has an abortion.) are very different things.

In my experience, MRAs are fully deserving of all the contempt and disdain they receive. The greatest sympathy I've been able to muster is for lost and confused men caught up by an attractive narrative that promises them that none of it is their fault. It's a lie, of course. But it makes me feel sorry for the guys who fall for it and it makes me despise the people who make money selling that particular line of shit.





leadership527 -> RE: Feminism (10/18/2009 9:53:15 PM)

Elisabella:

I agree with you to a point. I've thought of those same examples you stated and I totally agree with them. What I don't agree with is just giving up and going home. Sure, some people have a definition of "feminism" that you and I both don't agree with. Perhaps it's the dom in me, but that doesn't strike me like a very good reason to abandon the field to them.

By the way, I doubt there is such a thing as "women's issues". From a species standpoint, that's like my left hand trying to form a union against my right hand. In my observation, men and women are happiest individually when we are both happiest together.



DreamsOfSpider -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 12:05:01 AM)

So, Elisabella, in your ideal world where men and women have their own proper spheres...

...do we get to vote?



Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 12:45:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite
Claiming that women ought to be submissive to men in general is really rude and pushy of you.



Well, it would be rude and pushy if I had claimed that.

Fortunately for both of us, I didn't.



Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 12:53:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DreamsOfSpider

So, Elisabella, in your ideal world where men and women have their own proper spheres...

...do we get to vote?



In *my* ideal world, anyone over the age of 18 would be able to vote for any election, on the condition they passed a pre-voting test for that office's election. IE name the 2 major party candidates, their parties, and a few tickboxes of generalized hot topic issues where you tick whether that candidate is for or against.

Cuz you know, it really does irk me that in the US you can go in and just tick a bunch of boxes for minor public offices when you don't know anything about who's running, and make your decision solely on whether they have a D or R next to their name.

Also I think you kinda misread the tone of my post. I'm not saying women should legally be prohibited from running for office or men should be legally prohibited from being house-husbands, I'm saying that equal respect should be given to stereotypically female roles so that women don't feel they have to enter a traditionally male field they don't really have much interest in, in order to get respect. If a woman really wants to be a cheerleader, why would someone who claims to want whats best for all women tell them that in order to be respected as an athlete, they have to be a football player instead?



Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 1:04:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella
but the disdain feminism shows for Mens' Rights Activists (whose primary causes are things like giving men an equal shot at child custody, or strengthening adoption laws so a baby cant be adopted without the father's consent, or doing the same for abortion laws, etc)


Your examples cross a very broad range. Child custody (open question) to adoption (dad has constitutional rights unless they've been formally terminated) to abortion (wow, way to turn shit up to eleven because there is no way under our existing constitution that guys have "rights" to say anything about whether or not a woman has an abortion.) are very different things.

In my experience, MRAs are fully deserving of all the contempt and disdain they receive. The greatest sympathy I've been able to muster is for lost and confused men caught up by an attractive narrative that promises them that none of it is their fault. It's a lie, of course. But it makes me feel sorry for the guys who fall for it and it makes me despise the people who make money selling that particular line of shit.



Those examples do cross a broad range, but they're three of the main issues MRA's are working for. And regarding adoption, if the father's not listed on the birth certificate, if the woman claims it's a one night stand and she doesn't know who or where he is, the guy doesn't have any rights. I remember reading about a case where a guy found out he had a child, 4 years after the child was adopted at birth, and he wasn't asked or consulted despite his ex girlfriend knowing how to reach him. Legally, to the courts, he's no more than a sperm donor even though he's finanially stable and has a strong desire to raise his child himself.

I don't see that as 'an attractive narrative promising that none of it is their fault' but rather as a push for legal equality. Feminism has moved past legal equality (seeing as how the only laws that are now unequal are unequal in womens' favour) and is now working on things like "making sure women are protected from hearing dirty jokes" and "calling for an end to things women voluntarily participate in and enjoy because we don't want them to exist." It's moved past legal change and into the realm of social change.



Elisabella -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 1:08:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
In my observation, men and women are happiest individually when we are both happiest together.


I completely agree.

There are some seriously scary radical feminist sites out there - they're so out there that the only thing that makes me believe it's a genuine feminist site and not a parody site is that they delete all comments that disagree with them.

One of the best (worst?) said something like "male infanticide is preferable to female infanticide, and female infanticide is better than being born into patriarchy" with patriarchy defined as things like "men and women getting married" and "all heterosexual sex is rape."



ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 8:38:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

ShaktiSama, I don't see how calling other women sexist insults is feminist or unsexist.


*shrug*  I don't particularly care how any woman who attempts to politicize her submissive orientation sees things, Andalusite.  I'm glad the sexist world we live in makes some people wet, but frankly I don't think that is sufficient excuse for a whole society to be sexist.

Also, quite honestly, I am not impressed by this creature's Fix News cryptofascist argument tactics--where she bashes feminism in general, and me personally as a feminist, without dealing in any substantial way with the discussion of football or cheerleading.  She absolutely has no leg to stand on so far as the real sexual, social and economic issues are concerned--so she whines that I'M the real sexist and implies that I molest children.  Wow--cheap and stupid shots much?

I've seen this sort of "Squid Ink" approach used too many times over the years, and I'm sick of people falling for it so easily, yourself included.  Guess what?  Doesn't matter whether a female senator wants to be called "senator" by some brass officer in the army corps of engineers--what matters is that New Orleans is still a disaster area.  And it doesn't matter whether a female dominant calls a bratty sub on a message board "little girl"--I am neither a sexist nor a child molester, regardless of this creature tries to smear me.  And what matters is that cheerleading and football, taken together, are an incredibly sexist public institution which ropes both boys and girls into a male-dominant D/S dynamic very early in life, long before they can make adult choices.

As for Elisabella and her other political statements--which splatter all over the band so badly that you can't really summarize them all with anything other than "Feminism bad, Patriarchy Good"--if she is a female at all (and this is always very much in question, on the Internet), then she is certainly nothing new under the sun.  I have run into many women who choose to politicize and institutionalize their submissive and masochistic needs by becoming patriarchist cheerleaders.  Such people have always existed, and like their male counterparts, they do as much harm as they can when given the chance.

Gals like this look great at the cryptofascist rallies weeping tears of joy for the Fatherland, and they're great at pumping out cannon fodder and propaganda for the Reich.  Before you open up the concentration camps, you can count on your little doggies to murder the mental patients in your hospitals, and once the camps are in full sway, you can always count on them to shave the heads of the female prisoners and publish "scientific" papers about how the gypsy children aren't fully human.  In the years before you have that kind of destructive power, though, they'll be happy to yap on and on like Satan's own lapdogs about Motherhood and Femaleness and how to be a "proper" woman.

You don't have to live in a world with equal rights to live in a world where people make choices.  And some people will always choose to be evil.  [:'(]






Lucienne -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 9:23:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella
Those examples do cross a broad range, but they're three of the main issues MRA's are working for. And regarding adoption, if the father's not listed on the birth certificate, if the woman claims it's a one night stand and she doesn't know who or where he is, the guy doesn't have any rights. I remember reading about a case where a guy found out he had a child, 4 years after the child was adopted at birth, and he wasn't asked or consulted despite his ex girlfriend knowing how to reach him. Legally, to the courts, he's no more than a sperm donor even though he's finanially stable and has a strong desire to raise his child himself.


It's not that he had no rights, it's that he was unaware of his rights. By failing to exercise his rights for a lengthy period of time, he basically waives his rights. Failure to provide for your offspring for 4 years is grounds for termination of parental rights. It's called abandonment. He didn't know he was failing to provide for the child. Why didn't he know? He had a legal right to direct the upbringing of his child. He did not have a legal right to be informed by his ex-girlfriend that she was pregnant.

A guy who cares about his sperm needs to keep track of his deposits. If he had known that she was pregnant, he could've filed a paternity action the day the child was born. It's easy enough to say that she should have told him. It's also easy to say that he could have contacted her and asked if she was pregnant.

It's easy to feel sorry for a guy who just found out he has a four year old out there and it's too late for the guy to do anything about it. But what happens if the law rescinds that adoption and awards custody to the guy?Specifically, the kid is taken away from the only home he has ever known. I think most would consider that a wrenching experience. Generally, no one would be willing to adopt children that resulted from one night stands, or had dads that are difficult to track down. It's already a risky proposition, because "reappearing" dads are on the list of adoptive parents' nightmares, and courts don't always side with the adoptive parents in these cases. So you end up with a bunch of kids that no one will adopt because of the statistically unlikely event that whatever deadbeat bred them will show up to claim his property.

quote:


I don't see that as 'an attractive narrative promising that none of it is their fault' but rather as a push for legal equality.


Oh, really? At what point in your example was there a suggestion that the man had any responsibility in the situation? It's kind of a perfect example. It's the ex's fault he didn't know she was pregnant because she didn't tell him. It's the parties and the court's fault for not consulting with him. It's the law's fault for expecting him to have done something about his rights sooner. And now the laws need to change to accommodate his lack of desire to keep track of the progress of his sperm. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?


quote:

Feminism has moved past legal equality (seeing as how the only laws that are now unequal are unequal in womens' favour) and is now working on things like "making sure women are protected from hearing dirty jokes" and "calling for an end to things women voluntarily participate in and enjoy because we don't want them to exist." It's moved past legal change and into the realm of social change.


I think feminism has always been about social change. And I think it's pretty silly to act like banning cheerleading is on the average feminist's to do list. The dirty jokes comment... not really sure where you're getting that from.



GoDolphins -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 9:38:56 AM)

You know Lucienne, there have been women who have lied about not being pregnant before.  Asking them is not a guarantee they will tell you anything. 



subtlebutterfly -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 9:54:31 AM)

and on top of this discussion I cannot believe I'm subject to listening to a 3 hour long lecture about feminism!!!!!!!
One should do a lot of nasty things to the bitch that invented feminism (i.e. gave it a name).



ShaktiSama -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 9:57:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Well really, by saying you have a problem with the fact that NFL cheerleading exists, you're trying to impose your views on everyone, and how is that any different?


Ugh.

Since you cannot let it go--fine.  Let's clarify the issues.

1)  Expressing my opinion is not "imposing my views on everyone".  You cannot "impose your views on everyone" unless you have the political power and social power to do so, in addition to the will to force others to obey your whims:  I have none of the above, and have said as much more than once.  I even mentioned it in this thread, before you jumped in to play the part of Annie Coulter.

And let's also make one other thing very clear:  I am a female dominant and a feminist, posting to a thread on Feminism in the ASK A MISTRESS forum.  I could not choose to express my feminist views in a more perfectly correct and polite place to do so.  Of the two of us, I am the one who naturally belongs here and I am the one whose views were specifically requested in the OP by its forum location.

YOU are the person who has come here looking for a fight among people who were simply talking.  I did not seek you out, nor do I go to football games to harass people who participate in a loathesomely sexist institution.  So let's just make it very clear WHO is imposing WHAT on WHO, shall we?

quote:

But I also don't think it's right to prevent a child from doing cheerleading, dance, or gymnastics if they want to, from preventing them from having fun with their friends, just because you think it's unfeminist.


*shrug*  There are lots of way to have fun with your friends; you don't have to dress up like a sex object and show your underwear to strangers while underage.  If a girl under my care wants to play virtually any other sport, or pursue a less obnoxiously sexist version of dance or gymnastics, I have no objection to it.  My younger daughter has been in a number of dance programs over the years and was the fastest runner in her grade for many years.  She has many friends and plenty of fun; somehow she manages to lead a full life without needing to get in a lot of early practice for life as a whore.  Believe it or not, it can be done.

quote:

Forgive me if I don't get offended, but I don't feel that someone who is unable to have a debate without throwing insults is a proper judge of what constitutes class.


"I pray you don't have daughters or nieces" is a very, very profound insult.  The fact that you are so intellectually dishonest that you cannot acknowledge it as such is beyond pathetic.

quote:

Sexually exploited. Strong phrase. Using it to describe cheerleading kinda demeans all those girls in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe who are raped on a daily basis.


There are other words to describe rape.  Like, for example, RAPE.  Or assault.  Or violation.

See how rich the English language is?  You can use words like "sexual exploitation" to describe sexual exploitation, and words like "rape" to describe rape.

quote:

Frescoes of naked women doesn't mean that women walked around naked in public.


No, in this case it means that adult women walked around naked in semi-private for the entertainment of men who could afford it, and were sexual objects.

Western society has not significantly changed since then, as many a former cheerleader who works in the innumerable topless bars and strip clubs of the world can tell you.

quote:

 And those women were probably slaves - you can't talk about the exploitation of women by referencing slaves any more than you can say that since male slaves had to do heavy work, all men are being exploited.


Lol..."probably" slaves?  I would argue that in a patriarchist system, ALL women are slaves--including the patrician women, whose bodies are the owned property of their fathers/brothers/husbands.  But in this case, you are mistaken; some of the women depicted are slaves, some of them are professional prostitutes and entertainers who are paid wages and who go home to their private lives after the party.  We know this from the historical record which accompanies the depictions.

quote:

The class of prostitutes I was referring to were the meretrices.


A meretrix was a registered prostitute.  They held a license so that they could be taxed by the state.  The majority of women who sold sex or sexual entertainment were not registered--then as now.

quote:

You neglect to mention that all of the children of the pater familias were his property.


I also neglected to mention that I had peanut butter for lunch.  I didn't mention it because it wasn't relevant, and neither is this--unless you're ready to come over to my side of the fence and agree that patriarchy harms everyone, both male and female.  [;)]

quote:

Octavia was married 3 or 4 times...he hardly expected her to be a virgin priestess of a religion that didn't exist yet.


*rolls her eyes*  Please try not to be overliteral AND ignorant in the same sentence. 

1) Rome did have virgin priestesses of the senatorial class, who were killed quite brutally if they violated their chastity.  And no, Augustus did not expect his sister to be one of them.  I was using "virgin nun" as a quick summation of the unilateral sexual propriety which was expected of Roman upper class women.

2)  The name you first mentioned was not Octavia--who was only married twice, the second time to her brother's ally/opponent Marc Anthony.  Octavia, the sister of Augustus, has been confused with Julia, his daughter.

Octavia is not really associated with any sex scandals where SHE was the one having the sex.  She was forced to marry Marc Anthony, but she was faithful to him, apparently.  Anthony was the one who screwed around on HER, and betrayed his Roman wife after she sent him money and troops.

Her brother Octavian made good political use of that fact.

3)  "Julia", the royal lady of more scandalous fame, was the daughter of Augustus by his first marriage.  And Julia was married three times.  It was the third marriage, in which she was forced into wedlock with Tiberius just a few months after her second husband had died violently, that she ran afoul of her father--both sexually and politically, although of the two the political problem was by far the most serious.

And for the record, since you have brought up the subject of the negative aspects of Absolute Paternal Power?  This particular forced marriage hurt Tiberius every bit as much as it hurt Julia, if not more so.  Julia's husband Agrippa was dead--but Tiberius was married to a living woman, one he loved completely and passionately.  Augustus forced him to divorce the woman he loved and marry Julia for the sake of the dynasty, and Tiberius was a broken and bitter man thereafter until the day he died.  They say that he encountered his ex-wife on the street once, and was so overcome at the sight of her that he burst into tears and followed her home weeping, begging for her forgiveness.

quote:

Is there any political family in existence that doesn't keep up appearances?


Is there any political family that doesn't ATTEMPT to keep up appearances?  Many of them fail.  Some things do not change, when the political base line of a society does not change.  Which was my point from the outset.

quote:

So are you saying she didn't cheat on her husband and go off to marry her lover?


Good lord.  Is that the only scandalous behavior you've heard of?

The rumors of Messalina, in no particular order:

1)  That she once had an all-night sexual competition with a professional prostitute, to see who could take more cocks--and that she won it.

2)  That she used sex to control the politicians of the day, and sold her influence for money.

3)  That she ran a brothel of her own on the side, or that she was a nymphomaniac who would slip out of the emperor's bed to spend all night working at a brothel

4)  That she married a senator named Silius while still married to the emperor Claudius and plotted the murder of her husband.

It was the last of those four accusations that got her killed, by the way.  Claudius showed no emotion before, during, or after his wife's execution, and went on swiftly to marry another rather famous woman--Agrippina, the great-granddaughter of Augustus, adopted grandchild of Tiberius, sister of CALIGULA and mother of NERO.

Gee, I wonder who spread all those nasty rumors about Messalina that got her executed?  Could it be that there were other women in Rome who could benefit from her death?  And could it be that people who repeated this gossip in various forms over the centuries had various agendas for doing so?  [;)]

quote:

The only hostility in this thread has come from you and DemonKia, with your unprovoked insults. 


You came in with a hostile and aggressive attitude--you were received accordingly.  Try not to be so surprised. 



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Feminism (10/19/2009 10:16:27 AM)

I forgot how much fun Roman history was!  Can we do Eleanor of Aquitaine next?  [:D]

Face it, Shakti, some folks get what they ask for.  Or lie down for.  And we keep fighting the good fight anyway, in spite of them.

"I  only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."   Rebecca West



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875