Post-feminism and BDSM

[JMohegan]

Women have to choose between kids or career - that is a fact.

Ohhh, fuck. Somebody forgot to tell Meg Whitman and Nancy Pelosi!

 

[Netzach]

Ohhh, fuck. Somebody forgot to tell Meg Whitman and Nancy Pelosi!

Two women struggling with child care no doubt.

No, it remains a fact. It's always been a fact, no matter how someone might want to wish it away. You cannot have everything and have the same result as choosing one thing. To be in senate or a governor you are going to give up on certain experiences with your children that you would have if you choose to be with them most of the day. Or you're going to fail in your career. Pick one.

Now, sometimes I think being there 24/7 is substituted for good parenting in the popular imagination too much. Being monitored and being parented are not the same thing.

The problem as I see it, is that we demand perfect parenthood of one sex and nothing from the other, generally. I do see that beginning to change, but until dads get more on board and more *latitude* to get on board, there's going to be a gap. For some people, this gap can be filled with professional help (preschools, caregivers, nannies, play groups) and for other, more isolated or poorer women, there is a huge catch 22. You're supposed to work, but you're also supposed to be a model parent.

Treating this as a non-decision, of course everyone can do everything, and you can be a mommy and the CEO, see! - is the kind of fantasy thinking that I think middle-class feminism baited and switched the non middle classes with. For women who are *never* going to be CEO it's a dangerous fantasy to sell people. It's much more realistic to paint it as a choice - and think carefully before you choose, because it's going to matter.

 

[JMohegan]

Two women struggling with child care no doubt.

No, it remains a fact. It's always been a fact, no matter how someone might want to wish it away. You cannot have everything and have the same result as choosing one thing. To be in senate or a governor you are going to give up on certain experiences with your children that you would have if you choose to be with them most of the day. Or you're going to fail in your career. Pick one.

Now, sometimes I think being there 24/7 is substituted for good parenting in the popular imagination too much. Being monitored and being parented are not the same thing.

The problem as I see it, is that we demand perfect parenthood of one sex and nothing from the other, generally. I do see that beginning to change, but until dads get more on board and more *latitude* to get on board, there's going to be a gap. For some people, this gap can be filled with professional help (preschools, caregivers, nannies, play groups) and for other, more isolated or poorer women, there is a huge catch 22. You're supposed to work, but you're also supposed to be a model parent.

Treating this as a non-decision, of course everyone can do everything, and you can be a mommy and the CEO, see! - is the kind of fantasy thinking that I think middle-class feminism baited and switched the non middle classes with. For women who are *never* going to be CEO it's a dangerous fantasy to sell people. It's much more realistic to paint it as a choice - and think carefully before you choose, because it's going to matter.

No one can do everything. That is a fantasy indeed. But the same choices faced by women are also faced by men. My father, sole breadwinner, never had it all. He missed out on a lot.

I think the relevant conversation here really varies, depending on an individual's education level and realistic employment options. For women on the more educated end of that spectrum, with gainfully employed husbands, there's a choice. For single women and many poorer women, working is a necessity - and always has been, since long before the Women's Movement expanded the employment opportunities for some.

Getting back to my original point (that prompted lenny's response) - women need to take some responsibility for their behavior in the workplace. Use of 'feminine wiles' (as described in the post quoted below) may have short-term benefits, but be detrimental to long-term career goals, depending on where the woman wants to go. If you "play the little girl," you don't get to blame childcare issues for your failure to be promoted to leadership roles.

That's my only point. I agree that childcare responsibilities still fall more heavily on women than men, that many men are not on board with a more equitable distribution of responsibilities, and that corporate America should be giving males more latitude to get on board.

I have sat on the corner of a male colleague's desk, with my legs crossed and my cleavage hinted at, and batted my eyelashes and asked him if he would do whatever for me. It wasn't sexual harassment (no favours were promised), it isn't something he wouldn't ever have done, it simply moved my request up his list of priorities and stroked his ego (I said 'ego').

Similarly, I have used my 'feminine wiles' in other situations, deferring to older colleagues (both men and women), stroking their egos too, more by playing the little girl than by seeking to seduce them in any overtly sexual way.

 

[JMohegan]

For the record, I don't shake my tits or manipulate people by playing the little girl, but yes, I seduce them - with my good humour, my insightfulness, and my ability to cut through the corporate or fine-upstanding-member-of-society bullshit.

This directly contradicts what you wrote in an earlier post, but it doesn't matter. I want to be clear that I'm not talking about you, specifically, in my posts. I am addressing the behaviors that you and others have mentioned, and talking about women in general.

 

[lennythelion]

This directly contradicts what you wrote in an earlier post, but it doesn't matter. I want to be clear that I'm not talking about you, specifically, in my posts. I am addressing the behaviors that you and others have mentioned, and talking about women in general.

What bothers me JM, is that you seem to think there is only one way of doing things, and that is the way that white anglo-saxon men have decided things should be done.

Re the child-rearing thing, personally (and as I said before, I am not taking this personally, just quoting my own experience) I would have loved to have worked on a part-time basis, doing what I like doing and do well, working in an environment outside the home, but still being able to be there for my children in the way they needed me. I am quite positive I am not alone, but part-time doesn't fit the corporate mould. It doesn't matter how good you are at your job and how efficient you are at it (and many mothers are super-efficient because they don't want to play catch-up after hours), companies don't want you to do it, through job-sharing or otherwise, whether you are a woman or a man.

On the subject of "oiling the wheels", I wonder how other people get things done. It might not be acceptable in an anglo-saxon culture, (and I did specify that I wouldn't dare do anything like that in such a culture), but it is very acceptable, indeed expected, indeed actually not even noticed, to use "seduction" - which BTW is NOT "tit-shaking" - in human relations in 'latin' cultures, even in the workplace.

What you call "little girl manipulation tactics", I call playing down my hierarchical authority and playing up their knowledge and experience.

What you call "tit-shaking", I call breaking down gender-based resistance (e.g 'why should I do this for this her just because she's a manager - I have a certain power and I am going to stand my ground for the hell of it'), and encouraging voluntary cooperation ('if she likes me, she can't be all that bad').

As for being judged on leadership qualities, ha! Most companies don't care how you get results, just as long as you get them and everyone is happy getting them. Mission accomplished.

 

[JMohegan]

What bothers me JM, is that you seem to think there is only one way of doing things, and that is the way that white anglo-saxon men have decided things should be done.

As misreadings go, this one's a whopper. But it doesn't matter.

Don't let my opinion on what constitutes a leadership persona bother you. I'm not your boss. If whatever it is that you do is working for you, carry on.

 

[JMohegan]

I consider myself a feminist. I was born in 1960. I appreciate the freedoms we have now due to that struggle.

Hey Fury, I thought of you last night while out & about.

One of the women was talking about a book she received as a Christmas present, which caught my attention because the author is my favorite NYT columnist, Gail Collins.

When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present. Have you read it?

 

[kaycee217]

I have give the term "feminism" a negative connotation. I associate the idea with a spoiled and idealistic woman. This woman wants equal treatment, except when it's time to pay for dinner, open doors, the draft, and sports. This may not be accurate or fair, but it's just the connotation I apply to it.

Of course, I do believe in a human being's (not just a woman's) full sovereignty over their own lives as long as it does not come at the expense of others. If a woman wants a "vanilla" relationship, that's her choice. If she wants to serve another, that's fine as well. The only hesitation I have in D/s relationships is when the person submitting is somehow vulnerable. It's one thing to dominate a person because they love being dominated. It's a totally different situation when the submissive feels the giving up of power is the only way they can feel loved since they have such low self-esteem...or something along these lines.

I think of it like this. The hijab is not, by itself, oppressive. Forcing someone to wear it, or prohibiting them from wearing it IS oppressive. Basically, it all boils down to choice. But I acknowledge the choice should be made without undue influence.

 

[JMohegan]

I have give the term "feminism" a negative connotation. I associate the idea with a spoiled and idealistic woman. This woman wants equal treatment, except when it's time to pay for dinner, open doors, the draft, and sports. This may not be accurate or fair, but it's just the connotation I apply to it.

What do you call someone who supports equal rights for women, the splitting of bills, gender-blind door opening, a gender-blind draft, and Title IX?

 

[ownedsubgal]

What do you call someone who supports equal rights for women, the splitting of bills, gender-blind door opening, a gender-blind draft, and Title IX?

dunno, would that be a hippie? this is probably the same person who proudly professes to be "color blind." folks who aren't willing to respect or even recognize differences between genders creep me out quite a bit. i knew feminist ideals could be bad, but dang, are they that bad?

 

[JMohegan]

dunno, would that be a hippie? this is probably the same person who proudly professes to be "color blind." folks who aren't willing to respect or even recognize differences between genders creep me out quite a bit. i knew feminist ideals could be bad, but dang, are they that bad?

I was using the phrase as shorthand in identifying someone who thinks that the appropriate person to open a door is the one who reaches it first, and someone who believes that both men and women should be drafted.

Of course there are differences between genders. "Feminist" does not = someone who denies that fact.

 

[kaycee217]

What do you call someone who supports equal rights for women, the splitting of bills, gender-blind door opening, a gender-blind draft, and Title IX?

Not a feminist, that's for sure.

I guess I would call them "enlightened" or "Dutch."

 

[JMohegan]

Not a feminist, that's for sure.

I guess I would call them "enlightened" or "Dutch."

Haha, fair enough!

 

[intothewoods]

dunno, would that be a hippie? this is probably the same person who proudly professes to be "color blind." folks who aren't willing to respect or even recognize differences between genders creep me out quite a bit. i knew feminist ideals could be bad, but dang, are they that bad?

At one time hippies referred to persons who were more anti-establishment apolitical than anything else. People constantly refer to radicals as hippies, when the two groups were actually distinct. Sorry, pet peeve.

I respect a person's right to enter into a relationship in which the man is the breadwinner who pays for everything, provided all parties know what they're getting and are satisfied. To each his own. A feminist who wants to split the bill should receive the same respect. Again, to each his own. Surely what makes a woman is not defined by who pays for dinner. More importantly, providing women with equal rights in the workplace and in schools, and the right to split the bill and politely open doors for everyone does not mean that differences between the genders should be ignored.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I was using the phrase as shorthand in identifying someone who thinks that the appropriate person to open a door is the one who reaches it first, and someone who believes that both men and women should be drafted.

Of course there are differences between genders. "Feminist" does not = someone who denies that fact.

good to know. the "gender blind draft" thing threw me big time, as i don't believe that is recognizing a difference between genders.

the door opening thing...eh, i kinda believe males should open doors for females, even if the female gets to the door a few seconds before. now if a man is carrying/pushing something heavy, and a female is standing anywhere near the door...then yeah, girlie needs to hold the door. otherwise i am "old fashioned" when it comes to such things.

 

[kaycee217]

good to know. the "gender blind draft" thing threw me big time, as i don't believe that is recognizing a difference between genders.

the door opening thing...eh, i kinda believe males should open doors for females, even if the female gets to the door a few seconds before. now if a man is carrying/pushing something heavy, and a female is standing anywhere near the door...then yeah, girlie needs to hold the door. otherwise i am "old fashioned" when it comes to such things.

There's a difference between a gender blind draft and gender blind combat assignments.

It would be silly to ignore the soldier's gender when deciding what mission or task they should be doing, but saying the female gender is immune from the Selective Service registration and the draft? Poppycock!

 

[ownedsubgal]

There's a difference between a gender blind draft and gender blind combat assignments.

It would be silly to ignore the soldier's gender when deciding what mission or task they should be doing, but saying the female gender is immune from the Selective Service registration and the draft? Poppycock!

it is just my personal opinion, something to which we're all entitled...and yes of course i understand military combat assignments may never be (and hopefully are never) gender blind. i grew up a proud USMC brat. however i simply do not believe females should ever be included in a draft, period.

i believe strongly in equal rights/equal pay among genders in the workplace. mind you, "workplace" and "military" are not exactly the same in my view. for single women i believe strongly in reproductive rights (and generally the right for any free person to do what they will with their own body), the right to vote as they wish, and all that good basic stuff. where i diverge drastically from feminists is that i do not believe a married or otherwise legally attached female should have all the same rights and freedoms as a free and single female, and i also disagree passionately with the feminist ideal of "choice." you know, the idea that we can "choose" to be whatever we wish to be. 1. life simply does not work that way, and 2. who we are is not a "choice," hence i find the idea rather trivializing.

btw, you made me hungry when you wrote "poppycock."

 

[kaycee217]

it is just my personal opinion, something to which we're all entitled...and yes of course i understand military combat assignments may never be (and hopefully are never) gender blind. i grew up a proud USMC brat. however i simply do not believe females should ever be included in a draft, period.

i believe strongly in equal rights/equal pay among genders in the workplace. mind you, "workplace" and "military" are not exactly the same in my view. for single women i believe strongly in reproductive rights (and generally the right for any free person to do what they will with their own body), the right to vote as they wish, and all that good basic stuff. where i diverge drastically from feminists is that i do not believe a married or otherwise legally attached female should have all the same rights and freedoms as a free and single female, and i also disagree passionately with the feminist ideal of "choice." you know, the idea that we can "choose" to be whatever we wish to be. 1. life simply does not work that way, and 2. who we are is not a "choice," hence i find the idea rather trivializing.

btw, you made me hungry when you wrote "poppycock."

You're right, we do all have our own opinions. Perhaps you're a bit more qualified to yours, haha.

And I made you hungry? Didn't you have lunch?

 

[JMohegan]

it is just my personal opinion, something to which we're all entitled...and yes of course i understand military combat assignments may never be (and hopefully are never) gender blind. i grew up a proud USMC brat. however i simply do not believe females should ever be included in a draft, period.

i believe strongly in equal rights/equal pay among genders in the workplace. mind you, "workplace" and "military" are not exactly the same in my view. for single women i believe strongly in reproductive rights (and generally the right for any free person to do what they will with their own body), the right to vote as they wish, and all that good basic stuff. where i diverge drastically from feminists is that i do not believe a married or otherwise legally attached female should have all the same rights and freedoms as a free and single female, and i also disagree passionately with the feminist ideal of "choice." you know, the idea that we can "choose" to be whatever we wish to be. 1. life simply does not work that way, and 2. who we are is not a "choice," hence i find the idea rather trivializing.

So, in your opinion, Netzach should have fewer rights than 00Syd? Which rights, specifically, should she have given up when she married M?

 

[where]

dunno, would that be a hippie? this is probably the same person who proudly professes to be "color blind." folks who aren't willing to respect or even recognize differences between genders creep me out quite a bit. i knew feminist ideals could be bad, but dang, are they that bad?

there is a difference between 'respecting' differences between genders and treating someone differently simply because of their gender.

Whilst there was a vocal minority of women from some of the more radical fringes, especially in the 70s and 80s, most women who self identify as feminist, me included, are perfectly happy to split bills (in fact I will ONLY let you buy me food if I intend sleeping with you!), open doors for men, women and children and support equal rights for ALL people globally.

Although given this thread is about post-feminism, I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is as Po-fems seem to take a 'do what the fuck you want and fuck anybody else' attitude in keeping with most other 'post' isms.

ETA: just read post 267. Ignore my comments above.

 

[Ravenwind]

it is just my personal opinion, something to which we're all entitled...and yes of course i understand military combat assignments may never be (and hopefully are never) gender blind. i grew up a proud USMC brat. however i simply do not believe females should ever be included in a draft, period.

Agreed to an extent. I don't believe there should be a draft at all, let alone a gender-blind one. But, that being said, I feel that combat assignments *should* be gender-blind to an extent: that if a woman *wants* to be on the front lines with the guys, or flying that fighter in heavy fire, let them. If that's not their thing, then don't make them. That is the only reason I didn't go into the military; I felt that if I couldn't be there doing the actual killing, but was relegated to a behind-the-scenes job, what was the point of even signing up anymore? (well, that, and a touch of colorblindness...)

On the larger topic of feminism... I enjoy the fact that I am able to have control in real life, yet I have the power to give up that control in my private life as well. I'm thankful that I am able to *make* the choice to be submissive to my Husband, yet be able to keep others, regardless of gender, 'in their place' (so to speak) in public. I don't know what would've become of me if I was forced to be 'the submissive little housewife' or be 'the liberated woman' due to society's expectations.

Oh, and I'm back... stupid game holiday events. lol

 

[Netzach]

So, in your opinion, Netzach should have fewer rights than 00Syd? Which rights, specifically, should she have given up when she married M?

I'm working on outearning him so I can keep him barefoot and doing dishes, NOW what?

(And that was serious. Sort of.) I always thought of myself as the supreme example of the woman who unfairly expects to have her butt kissed in chivalry, but I've since found that that works best for me in a playtime context, and really I like being the dude in my personal relationships, I'm re-acquainting myself with my protective butch tendencies and enjoying it. Fiscal factors are the main driving force, there's something deliciously alpha-crowning about money if you want to let it be. Oh sure, honey, you want that? Just get it, I'll take care of it. M is becoming more and more of an "I don't give a rat's ass" person in his older age, too, so we just kind of roll how we feel. He's getting more overtly andro-femme in his appearance and I guess I'm my usual responsive self. If you were to spot him in a crowd you'd think to yourself "boy that cute faggy dude likes the techno fabric skiwear stuff and manbags." Outwardly as we try on this "femme and femmer" appearance, the way that cash shakes out at this moment becomes an interesting player in the drama.

Sometimes I dress up and hold the door for guys downtown when I do my banking, just to play with their heads. They get all emasculated and uncomfortable, but then turned on when they look up and it's cute watching it all play on their faces.

 

[where]

I'm working on outearning him so I can keep him barefoot and doing dishes, NOW what?

(And that was serious. Sort of.) I always thought of myself as the supreme example of the woman who unfairly expects to have her butt kissed in chivalry, but I've since found that that works best for me in a playtime context, and really I like being the dude in my personal relationships, I'm re-acquainting myself with my protective butch tendencies and enjoying it. Fiscal factors are the main driving force, there's something deliciously alpha-crowning about money if you want to let it be. Oh sure, honey, you want that? Just get it, I'll take care of it.

Sometimes I dress up and hold the door for guys downtown when I do my banking, just to play with their heads. They get all emasculated and uncomfortable, but then turned on when they look up and it's cute watching it all play on their faces.

when they look up?

how tall are you?

 

[Netzach]

when they look up?

how tall are you?

LOL five four. I guess it's down, or just AT. Outside the lunch hour bubble of self-absorption long enough to process it, a lot of them are looking for a door handle or at their feet.

 

[where]

LOL five four. I guess it's down, or just AT. Outside the lunch hour bubble of self-absorption long enough to process it, a lot of them are looking for a door handle or at their feet.

I suddenly had this vision of a towering amazon peering down at all the suits