Where are all the women?

[JMohegan]

I agree - but I wonder how many men want that sort of sexual availability from the women they have joined with in relationship?

*raises hand*

If you're talking about sexual availability to ME (and only me), yes, of course.

 

[callinectes]

My partner would raises his hand along with JM, for the same reason.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I agree - but I wonder how many men want that sort of sexual availability from the women they have joined with in relationship?

my Master is one of them. He is a man who wants his mate sexually available "to all and sundry." but then, he's just weird that way.

 

[intothewoods]

I want a women that understands quid pro quo - I'll do all the manly stuff, you give me sex...

There's not enough of that commitment to keep your partner sexually satisfied amongst the marrieds. I have to say, I don't think gee, men are pussies these days and boy are women bitches explains it all. There are many contributing factors, not the least of which is looking at your wife or husband as the provider or mother/caretaker, rather than as a lover.

 

[nh23]

As I've said before... you ain't seen nothin' until you've chosen to give dad primary custody/take every other weekend visitation for yourself in the divorce.

I think that part of being a good parent means knowing to make the right decisions for your children, even if it's not PC. I'm sure you had good reason for the decision you made.

Well, it has to be done. I sometimes wonder what is worth it. There are definitely trade-offs.

What kind of hours does your Master work?

He's only getting work one or two days a week, and it's from home. He gave up the life he had four hours away to move here with me, because he knew it would be easier on my children than moving them. Problem is I live in an area that has been hit very hard by the recession. There is no work. He's been applying on a consistent basis since he's moved here, and nothing.

He could probably get on somewhere minimum wage, but at the price I would have to pay someone just to get the kids on and off the bus it wouldn't be worth it. And what he makes working from home that one to two days a week is more than he would make at a minimum wage job anyway. So mostly he's home all the time.

It's worth it to me to work and raise my children because I've never had an interest in being a stay at home mom. I love being a mom. I love cooking and cleaning for my family, but when the kids are at school I have no idea what I would do all day. I've always wanted to be a nurse and I love my career. I work mostly when my kids are at school and sleeping, so they don't miss out on time with me, although I have to admit I'm drained a lot when I'm home.

I also don't have the option of not working. The kids have to be fed and clothed. Even when I was with my ex and we were both working full time, it wasn't an option for me not to work. We just couldn't afford it.

 

[nh23]

double post

 

[satindesire]

​

Careful now, or I'll hide your snackies!!! I mean it!

 

[graceanne]

Christ, that book was dull and poorly written.

I disagree with the idea that O's character has ever served as a model for mainstream women. A subset of the kinky world, perhaps. But sexual availability to all and sundry does not fit any ideal of non-kinky American womanhood of which I am aware.

Seriously.

There's not enough of that commitment to keep your partner sexually satisfied amongst the marrieds. I have to say, I don't think gee, men are pussies these days and boy are women bitches explains it all. There are many contributing factors, not the least of which is looking at your wife or husband as the provider or mother/caretaker, rather than as a lover.

Actually, there are Christian books out there concerning this sort of thing. Too often sex is put on the back burner, and that (as far as I'm concerned) is one of the reasons that marriages have problems.

Isn't there a book out there about having sex every day and how it will improve your relationship? I looked, but can't find it. Maybe someone else could.

Now, I don't think K or I have the energy to do it every day (especially since he won't when I'm on the rag), but I thought the idea behind it was a good idea.

Careful now, or I'll hide your snackies!!! I mean it!

​

I've been 7 months preggers - I sincerely doubt you can move quick enough to get to my snackies without me knowing, let alone hide them. *pbbth*

 

[ZRT]

How would you describe the difference between the two?

It's my same regard of any activist movement becoming corrupted by the inevitable progression from a revolutionary movement into a political business.

Political feminists can be utterly vicious to women who don't conform to their politics or ideals. The attack that springs to mind was calling Kay Bailey Hutchinson a 'female impersonator' back in '93.

Disagree with her all you want- and I disagree with Kay on a lot of things. But for a feminist movement to attack other women on anything but the basis of their politics is abhorrent.

For that matter, there was a lot of deafening silence from feminists not named Paglia about the various Caribou Barbie cracks about Palin. Feminist supporters of Obama didn't seem to be raising much cain about the slurs thrown at Hillary Clinton, either.

It's the same old show- they become entrenched, they become part of the system. The ideals get tossed out in the face of calculated political necessity. Representing women isn't the business, it's producing votes for the political machine and maintaining viability while constantly jostling with other interest groups for attention.

Political activist groups are a part of the system that can't be eliminated, and occasionally serve beneficial purposes. But they're prone to being utterly corrupted and should always be viewed with cynicism and suspicion.

That's the way I feel about any centralized power, though.

As for grass-roots feminism, that to me is about celebrating and endorsing women having the freedom to choose what to do with their lives. Instead of being handed off as prizes from father to husband, women now have a multitude of options in life. When those choices are unnaturally restricted, it's entirely appropriate to fight against that.

Take that woman who protested the Master's being male-only. Now, I came down on both sides of that one- on the one hand, as a private institution the Master's can control its membership. On the other hand, I appreciated that the protest was done without threat of government coercion. Try to get a boycott going, raise hell, get some publicity, that's entirely within the bounds of how to do things. Yeah, it was bound to be futile, but it can set the stage for later gains.

 

[satindesire]

I've been 7 months preggers - I sincerely doubt you can move quick enough to get to my snackies without me knowing, let alone hide them. *pbbth*

No, but you've been 7 months pregnant before, so you know I am devious enough to PAY someone who isn't pregnant to hide them.

MUAH HAH HAH HAH HAAAAAH!

 

[graceanne]

No, but you've been 7 months pregnant before, so you know I am devious enough to PAY someone who isn't pregnant to hide them.

MUAH HAH HAH HAH HAAAAAH!

Don't make me spike everything with exlax!

 

[satindesire]

Don't make me spike everything with exlax!

Hey, you know that wouldn't be so bad...




You know how it goes.

 

[graceanne]

Hey, you know that wouldn't be so bad...




You know how it goes.

Oh, yeah. Not all pregnant people have my issues. (Chronic diarrhea - haven't had anything else since I was a teen.)

 

[JMohegan]

There's not enough of that commitment to keep your partner sexually satisfied amongst the marrieds. I have to say, I don't think gee, men are pussies these days and boy are women bitches explains it all. There are many contributing factors, not the least of which is looking at your wife or husband as the provider or mother/caretaker, rather than as a lover.

Mutual exhaustion is the number one complaint I hear.

Madonna/whore confusion has been around a long, long time. 50s sitcoms with separate twin beds for spouses really crack me up.

 

[Netzach]

It's my same regard of any activist movement becoming corrupted by the inevitable progression from a revolutionary movement into a political business.

Political feminists can be utterly vicious to women who don't conform to their politics or ideals. The attack that springs to mind was calling Kay Bailey Hutchinson a 'female impersonator' back in '93.

Disagree with her all you want- and I disagree with Kay on a lot of things. But for a feminist movement to attack other women on anything but the basis of their politics is abhorrent.

For that matter, there was a lot of deafening silence from feminists not named Paglia about the various Caribou Barbie cracks about Palin. Feminist supporters of Obama didn't seem to be raising much cain about the slurs thrown at Hillary Clinton, either.

It's the same old show- they become entrenched, they become part of the system. The ideals get tossed out in the face of calculated political necessity. Representing women isn't the business, it's producing votes for the political machine and maintaining viability while constantly jostling with other interest groups for attention.

Political activist groups are a part of the system that can't be eliminated, and occasionally serve beneficial purposes. But they're prone to being utterly corrupted and should always be viewed with cynicism and suspicion.

That's the way I feel about any centralized power, though.

As for grass-roots feminism, that to me is about celebrating and endorsing women having the freedom to choose what to do with their lives. Instead of being handed off as prizes from father to husband, women now have a multitude of options in life. When those choices are unnaturally restricted, it's entirely appropriate to fight against that.

Take that woman who protested the Master's being male-only. Now, I came down on both sides of that one- on the one hand, as a private institution the Master's can control its membership. On the other hand, I appreciated that the protest was done without threat of government coercion. Try to get a boycott going, raise hell, get some publicity, that's entirely within the bounds of how to do things. Yeah, it was bound to be futile, but it can set the stage for later gains.

Wait, being a good feminist means that I now HAVE to rally behind any female political candidate, even if she's race baiting, because we both have a snatch? I didn't hear that many people fail to say they thought certain things were out of bounds. I thought a lot of stuff about SP was out of bounds on a lot of grounds, but I didn't have to slap everyone on the hand over every single snark - this is public life. Deal. If you don't want people to look at you that way don't raid Neiman Marcus on the campaign dime and don't. freaking. cry. God.

 

[Shankara20]

Political feminists can be utterly vicious to women who don't conform to their politics or ideals.

I consider my self a feminist, I have been honored by our local NOW for some of my work. I am a rather left leaning political sort of fellow.

Our local University woman's study collage aged feminists are a group I have difficulty with. My 30 something daughter-in-law is politically astute. She considers herself a life long advocate for woman's rights. When she went back to college after the birth of her second son she took class in woman's study and was shunned and eventually push out because she express love for her male husband and two male sons. I am not inditing the full movement, just reporting this story.

 

[intothewoods]

Mutual exhaustion is the number one complaint I hear.

Madonna/whore confusion has been around a long, long time. 50s sitcoms with separate twin beds for spouses really crack me up.

Mutual exhaustion is a bitch. Beyond the overt madonna/whore thing, people also start to think of their partner as the person who tends to the kids, for example, rather than the hot bitch I used to bang. An almost Pavlovian-like anti-sexual association. Conversely, keep banging your partner and you'll keep releasing all of those love chemicals.

Seriously.



Actually, there are Christian books out there concerning this sort of thing. Too often sex is put on the back burner, and that (as far as I'm concerned) is one of the reasons that marriages have problems.

Isn't there a book out there about having sex every day and how it will improve your relationship? I looked, but can't find it. Maybe someone else could.

Now, I don't think K or I have the energy to do it every day (especially since he won't when I'm on the rag), but I thought the idea behind it was a good idea.

​

I've been 7 months preggers - I sincerely doubt you can move quick enough to get to my snackies without me knowing, let alone hide them. *pbbth*

Yes, there is such a book. I have friends who did it actually. I was taught - in Sunday school, no less - that sex is one way to be close to God. And in the marriage contract, the husband has a duty to keep his wife sexually satisfied. Damn straight bitches! Anyhoo.

 

[intothewoods]

I consider my self a feminist, I have been honored by our local NOW for some of my work. I am a rather left leaning political sort of fellow.

Our local University woman's study collage aged feminists are a group I have difficulty with. My 30 something daughter-in-law is politically astute. She considers herself a life long advocate for woman's rights. When she went back to college after the birth of her second son she took class in woman's study and was shunned and eventually push out because she express love for her male husband and two male sons. I am not inditing the full movement, just reporting this story.

Really???? See, I've just never had that experience, and I spent some time at a super duper lefty place. Not doubting you, just expressing my concern. I know these nuts exist, but I hate to see the entire feminist movement reduced to them. Too often, right wing extremists like Rush Limbaugh put out this mysognist vitriol and then people start to believe that feminist means man-hating. I know plenty of man-loving, keeping their husbands happy in and out of the sack feminists. And there are feminists who are public figures who spew bullshit that I don't agree with, but I hate that the backlash to that is this disdain for feminism and a refusal to identify as a feminist when you believe that men and women should have equal rights under the law.

 

[JMohegan]

Really???? See, I've just never had that experience, and I spent some time at a super duper lefty place. Not doubting you, just expressing my concern. I know these nuts exist, but I hate to see the entire feminist movement reduced to them. Too often, right wing extremists like Rush Limbaugh put out this mysognist vitriol and then people start to believe that feminist means man-hating. I know plenty of man-loving, keeping their husbands happy in and out of the sack feminists. And there are feminists who are public figures who spew bullshit that I don't agree with, but I hate that the backlash to that is this disdain for feminism and a refusal to identify as a feminist when you believe that men and women should have equal rights under the law.

From the beginning, the most vocal supporters of feminism have been misandrists. Women who do not expound upon the need for mutual respect, but mock anything and everything having to do with traditional men instead. Not just the men themselves, but women who date or befriend them.

They are totally uninterested in dialogue, outright stating that "privilege" blinds men to the point where males are unable to offer meaningful contributions to the discussion.

They do a lot of yelling, distorting, and insulting. No listening whatsoever. In short, their case is hardly compelling.

I do not support equal rights *because of* the efforts of these women. I support equal rights *in spite of* the efforts of these women. They really do give feminism a bad name.

 

[00Syd]

This is interesting. Do we need a men's liberation? I mean, it seems to have worked for us gals. Do you think there are many men out there who would love to see an end to all the male stereotypes?

Yes.

That was the whole thing that bothered me with the real man thread to begin with. That we're saying that its okay for women to not fit into their gender stereotype, and it may very well even be a positive thing, but for a men to do it its not okay and not a positive thing and thats just the way it is and tough shit for the guys who don't like it.

But, y'know, that's what the situation was for women for eons, and it sucked, and women went ahead and changed it and now we know that its not cool to treat women like that en mass. So why can't we get ourselves together enough to realize that maybe the situation for men, while obviously different, may not be too hot either? Why continue to further the "suck it up, sissy boy" ideal when we know its pretty shitty?

 

[Netzach]

Oh that.

Well really, if like seven college girls decided I was a bisexual traitor to the cause, and the world still looks the way it does on the outside, I'm still fine calling myself a feminist. Small f, anyway.

 

[Netzach]

Yes.

That was the whole thing that bothered me with the real man thread to begin with. That we're saying that its okay for women to not fit into their gender stereotype, and it may very well even be a positive thing, but for a men to do it its not okay and not a positive thing and thats just the way it is and tough shit for the guys who don't like it.

But, y'know, that's what the situation was for women for eons, and it sucked, and women went ahead and changed it and now we know that its not cool to treat women like that en mass. So why can't we get ourselves together enough to realize that maybe the situation for men, while obviously different, may not be too hot either? Why continue to further the "suck it up, sissy boy" ideal when we know its pretty shitty?

I've always thought of this as feminism/queer liberation phase 2, though a number within the movements are so hostile to hets and men that, well, they don't see the value either. If you think about it, men are much more comfortable with women's shifting roles than being required to examine their own or change inside them at all.

 

[00Syd]

Wow. I'm getting a really strong feeling that hardly anyone gives a flying frack about how women behave, dress, etc and yet most everyone has very strong opinions about what constitutes manliness.

Why is this?

Seriously, I'm blown away.

Me too. I think its partly because thanks to the women's lib movement we know that women can defy their gender stereotypes and still be strong real women, and partly because if anyone actually purported that women should dress, behave, etc in a certain way they would be called sexist.

But, y'know, when we say the same stuff about men its alright because men should be tough and suck it up if they don't like it.

 

[JMohegan]

I know these nuts exist, but I hate to see the entire feminist movement reduced to them.

I've heard lots of women say this privately.

If more feminists in the public sphere had denounced the "nuts," openly, vehemently, unequivocally, and repeatedly, then perhaps it would be more difficult for the movement to be "reduced to them."

 

[Netzach]

I've heard lots of women say this privately.

If more feminists in the public sphere had denounced the "nuts," openly, vehemently, unequivocally, and repeatedly, then perhaps it would be more difficult for the movement to be "reduced to them."

Name some. Dworkin's dead and gone.

I've always loudly and consistently opposed the anti SM contingents and didn't win any feminist accolades on campus for that. The SM question really is the perfect distillment of whether or not we're going to judge sexualities and how.

The Michigan Women's music festival is hardly going to trash the planet single handedly. Even if I think they're assholes and I've said it a million times.