Good Manners

[Netzach]

I knew of these studies, but I didn't know both thought they were contributing equally.
It's actually been brought up before in this thread (when I was arguing about how anyone can do housework) that men aren't even expected to contribute (I'm generalizing). That is truly messed up...it speaks to me of...a very unequal upbringing...



I hate using the verb "should", 'cause it carries 0 power in my vocabulary, but, things shouldn't be that way. Men should be expected to do any of the tasks around the house, for themselves. Damn it, why are we perpetuating this notion of woman as domestic servant?

Considering how long it takes some people to marry and the fact that a lot of us are living on our own - everyone "should" be able and willing to do any of this stuff.

I'm not sure it's just basic sexism in the sense of "mom does everything" I think it's more familial breakdown to the point of "no one really does anything"

For some people "obvious" things have never been modeled - there's a lot of flavors of dysfunction out there. Boys with this issue get more latitude, but everyone "should" know certain things.

 

[teknight]

Considering how long it takes some people to marry and the fact that a lot of us are living on our own - everyone "should" be able and willing to do any of this stuff.

I'm not sure it's just basic sexism in the sense of "mom does everything" I think it's more familial breakdown to the point of "no one really does anything"

For some people "obvious" things have never been modeled - there's a lot of flavors of dysfunction out there. Boys with this issue get more latitude, but everyone "should" know certain things.

Hmm...great point. I hadn't thought of that.....which is why I object to using "should".

 

[intothewoods]

Hm.

They've done so many studies on shared housework and peripheral stuff when both work similar hours - how BOTH he and she think he's doing half and they time them both and he's doing maybe 20 percent.

I think that's the default. Insistence on 50/50 belied by a pretty traditional reality.

I know that a man who displays disinterest in domesticity is seen as normal, and a woman who displays disinterest in it is lazy and contemptible.

Yeah, there is a movement called equal parenting where people actually do a chart to divy things up. And even those folks found the women did more, but at least it was clear who was doing what and it was more or less negotiated.

There's the question of who has power and decision making authority and who is actually take care of shit around the house. And there are all different types of power and dominance. All can shift over the years in a typical relationship.

 

[RJMasters]

I used the word attack because you used it.

Yes I did. And for good reason. Perhaps as a way for you to understand my perspective of why I used it, While reading through this thread I noticed the following exchange between OSG and Wench. Women who identify as a submissive and a slave.


OSG
it's also particularly odd and disturbing to me that so many people are relegating everyday "vanilla" interactions to the realm of bdsm.

Wench
But these days it seems like any time a man does something with out first defering, then confirming, then reconfirming and finally having the woman sign off on what ever it is he's doing, then he's showing his control over the situation.

To some degree I supose it is a bit "I am man" type of thing, but no more than any "vanilla" was taught for generations before. *shrug*

osg
you said it all right there. it's a sad commentary on our culture.

Now whether you agree or disagree with the views expressed here, I do not think that anything said there is cause for anyone to be attacked. Yet that simple exchange produced these responses.

These are ridiculous statements.

there are some doozies here. Jeeze, a woman orders for herself at a restaurant and now all men are emasculated weaklings ROFL

If I lived in the world OSG dreams of, I would slit my wrists.

I can now see why you like this scene. it absolves you of any personal responsibility, manipulates others into paying for you and providing protection.
------------------

Ok, JM. So I ask you to reread the last statement above again and tell me how that is not a slap in the face and designed to insult a woman who has made a choice to live a slave or submissive lifestyle? How would that not be a slap in the face to any vanilla woman in a traditional household? The other statments....well they could be chalked up to forum banter but I listed them because they are part of what I see as an accumulative effect that adds up to a hostle environment. Why would you want to even participate in any discussion if everything you said was dismissed as ridiculious, meet with mocking sarcasm, or overdramatizations of how people would kill themselves.

Now the person who made the last insulting statement above was Kybele. And I single Kybele out because in my view that post and the follow post seem to stand out to me.

Kybele said to OSG
I can respect perspectives if they are cogently argued. you are unable to do so. I'm not going to 'respect' you because you are basing your world view on a small and slightly skewed way of life........... and you expect that way of life to somehow be mainstream

Now the other reason Kybele gets singled out was the exchange that happened between her and Rosco on this thread.

------------------

Kybele
are these the same as the 'feminized' men rosco et al rant on about? never met any of them either.

Rosco
That's true, I do agree with vetteman on the efeeminization of young middle class males.

Kybele
but it's a chimera. it doesn't exist except in the minds of men of a certain age who feel threatened by what may or may not be post-modernity.


Kybele
now, back to your irrational fear of supposedly effeminised young men....


Rosco
I'm not dodging, just politely overlooking your attempt to marginalise and pathologize from a rather dubious position of authority.


Rosco
Yes, it has been going on for a long time and I don't expect it to stop. I do what I can to resist, but it's like trying to stop the tide.

Kybele
but it's not a 'tide' there is nothing to resist. you are being paranoid.


Rosco
I think we'd agree that the phenomena under discussion are actually happening. We just disagree on the interpretation, which probably comes down to some philosophical thing about the meaning of "female" or "male".

Kybele
but you make it seem it is something that is new. and more to the point something that is a threat. you think that this is marking a change in society. it's not. there is a bit or RW media hype about it (like catching teh ghey a few years back) but it is not new, not increasing and not wiping out masculinity as we know it.

Rosco
If I "make it seem like something new", that's just me having a bit of fun. I disagree about the increasing, and the threat, though.

Kybele
OK, well evidence it increasing or threatening traditional masculinities.

Rosco
The actual efeeminization of young males isn't so much a threat as a symptom of things that are very threatening: great changes in technology, economy and culture that have totally disrupted traditional ways and families. Why do you think that peasants in Afghanistan are fighting a 21st century mechanised army? That's an extreme example, but it certainly serves as evidence that "traditional masculinities" are under threat.

Kybele
maybe I have an issue with what you refer to as 'effeminisation'. I will agree that we are now in this era of post-modernity and that identities have changed as have roles, but there is little to evidence a threat to traditional masculinities, unless you perceive change as threat. But that would then mean defining how masculinities have been theorised and perceived through the ages, which then makes the notion of 'traditional' masculinities defunct, because you then have to choose which tradition you are looking at. Are you looking at 1950s masculinities? 1914 ones? how about 1860s or 1750s? or 1450s? So which masculinities are you talking about? cause they have been changing and evolving since we started painting on walls with blood.

Rosco
Leave it to an academic to think that people go around "theorizing" things.

Kybele
I'll take that as you admitting you have no evidence to base your silly claims upon.

Rosco
The past IS "the 1950s", when that decade is taken as shorthand for "the recent past, in living memory, when things were a good deal different but not unrecognizably so".

The differences between all those different eras that Kybele names are trivial (efeeminizationwise) compared to their differences from today.

In other words, big, recent changes have happened. The pill. Modern divorce law. Labor saving machinery, etc etc etc.


Kybele
no bigger changes than happened during the industrial revolution. and you think that in the 1950s men were men and women just shut up and got fucked? you need to stop watching MadMen and read some social history.

Rosco
I'll give you the industrial revolution, which happened practically yesterday. I don't watch "Mad Men" and you're putting words in my mouth about the 50s.

Kybele
you pulled up the 1950s, though I admit madmen was a cheap shot.

The point I'm trying to make is that you have a mythologised vision of some kind of golden age where men did manly stuff and were strong and women did house-y children-ey stuff and were deferential to men. It never existed except in the movies which of course supported the dominant... hell lets forget cultural hegemony... you know damn well that the shit in films is no more real than little green men.

now you can buy into that ideal, just like some people buy into the ideal of a series of badly written sci-fi novels to base their lives upon, but that doesn't make real. it's an idealised fantasy you are living. Or wanting to live. Women have always been bolshy, difficult and argumentative and men have always bent over backwards to placate them. This is nothing new. and as scary as you may find feminism (and let's face it, fear of feminism is what this is about), it's not out to castrate you or make you less of a man, just allow some privileged women the opportunity of a slightly more level playing field.

Rosco
This all has much more to do with whatever is going on in your own world than anything I ever said. As far as the 50s go, I was just responding to ITW, who brought it up.

My mom would laugh at the "fear of feminism" thing. Let's just say that I was raised by a hard-core Second Waver.


Kybele
My world is your world. you go on about men becoming feminized but you can't back the claim up.

and my mum was also a radical second waver. Set up the first battered wives hostels and hostels for single mothers. My brother is possibly the most misogynistic man you are ever likely to meet. His loathing and contempt for women runs very very deep. So being raised by a feminist doesn't qualify for understanding new man status.

Though I suppose it does mean you can cook, which is a definite bonus!


I find the above exchange to be very revealing. It was never an honest discussion. From the get go, Kybele was baiting Rosco and continued to do so throughout the entire exchange. There were points in the discussion where Rosco did offer what he thought were reasons for the change we see in today's society when you contrast it with the society that existed in 1950.

I sumize that Kybele actually believes in her own mind that she somehow won and probably got a satisfied thrill by getting that one last jab in at the very end. When I add the earlier insults with her entire approach to the above disucssion, I find it hypocritical for her to say that the hostile environment she creates "is" somehow a myth or a product or others imagination.

I think Rosco said it best when he said - "I'm not dodging, just politely overlooking your attempt to marginalise and pathologize from a rather dubious position of authority."

Again, who would want to even enter into a conversation with such a person?

See the bolded bit above. I assumed that you consider yourself a traditional male, and that you would therefore include yourself among those whose roles and expressions are being "attacked," as you see it.

You would be wrong in this interpretation.

I was asking why you, personally, feel so attacked by society at large. Why you, RJ, don't feel right at home among conservative Christians. That's hardly a fringe group.

In this thread I was not personally attacked, until I spoke up and pointed out the hypocrasy I see in someone talking as if they are an authority on good manners, then personaly attack and show contempt for others, then finish it all off with a bait and switch discussion.

Rightwingers dominate talk radio, and Fox dominates cable "news." Evangelical Christianity dominates the public face of American religion, and has a stranglehold on the Republican Party - not to mention those who fill Evangelical pews.

I really tire of the ease with which people dismiss those voices are irrelevant, or lacking in influence on the opinions of the populace of this country.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, the average preacher, or even the average elected official from a conservative district, have been casting aspersions on the traditional male role.

No I am not suggesting any such thing. Are you suggesting that any of them are somehow influencing people to believe that women are somehow inferior or not equal to men?

 

[RJMasters]

Netz responded the way she did, in part, 'cause you wrote some very unclear posts, RJM.

Agreed. Its clear I communicated poorly.

 

[JMohegan]

Ok, JM. So I ask you to reread the last statement above again and tell me how that is not a slap in the face and designed to insult a woman who has made a choice to live a slave or submissive lifestyle? How would that not be a slap in the face to any vanilla woman in a traditional household?

I agree that submissive females and traditional women have been rhetorically slapped in the face on this thread, though not for the reason you mention.

It is the attempt to equate the perspective of a dysfunctional individual with a submissive or traditional perspective that I find deeply offensive.

No I am not suggesting any such thing.

Then why do you dismiss their influence?

Are you suggesting that any of them are somehow influencing people to believe that women are somehow inferior or not equal to men?

Well, Limbaugh's a misogynist, clearly. O'Reilly's more like a dirty old man.

As for the rest of them, I'm sure individual messages vary. But since the SBC is promulgating the notion that wives should submit to the leadership of husbands, and Catholics deny women all leadership roles, it's tough to conclude that those folks stand for gender equality.

So my generalized answer to your question is yes.

 

[Bette_coquette]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll make a couple comments about women's "traditional" roles in a partnership. I prefer to be in charge of the house and the kitchen. I don't want my submissive telling me how to run either. Those are my areas and I can run them better than him.

I cook more. I do all the cleaning. His idea of cleaning is not the same as mine. I have this same view when I hire girls to come do the cleaning for me. They just can't do it as well as I can. Period.

In my mind, it's a matter of controlling my environment. I clean my house for myself and my pet. I cook meals to nourish myself and my pet. He helps me clean up after a meal and he has certain chores he's in charge of. Other than that, it's all mine.

If one wants to equate that with the dumbing down of women, that's fine with me. I just know if I had anyone else rummaging around in my kitchen and leaving things where I can't find them, I'd have a coronary.

 

[Keroin]

Ok, JM. So I ask you to reread the last statement above again and tell me how that is not a slap in the face and designed to insult a woman who has made a choice to live a slave or submissive lifestyle? How would that not be a slap in the face to any vanilla woman in a traditional household? The other statments....well they could be chalked up to forum banter but I listed them because they are part of what I see as an accumulative effect that adds up to a hostle environment. Why would you want to even participate in any discussion if everything you said was dismissed as ridiculious, meet with mocking sarcasm, or overdramatizations of how people would kill themselves.

RJ, since you’ve painted me as an “attacker”, let me revisit and clarify my statements.

These are ridiculous statements.

That is the bit you quoted. Here is the rest of that post:

Just because large segments of western society have chosen to leave behind outdated social code – which was largely predicated on the idea that women were weaker and less capable than men – doesn’t mean that men have been universally emasculated. What it means is that there are now more options out there as far as acceptable behaviour for both men and women.

For the JM’s and Rosco’s and RJ’s, there are still CM’s, Wenchies and OSG’s and others who appreciate their style of manners. It’s just a matter of personality types finding each other.

Please note that I wrote the “statements” were ridiculous, not that the people making them were. If the latter were true, that would be an attack. What we were doing was having a debate and my experience with both of these women is that they are capable of putting forth ideas and defending them.

If anyone else, (JM, you, Netz, etc), had made the same statements – essentially that a man can’t do anything these days without deferring to a woman and that our entire culture is suffering as a result – I would have responded the same way. I’m not going to pull my punches because the people who made the statements happen to be submissive – that is how I show my respect, by treating them as competent equals.

Here’s the second statement you quoted:

If I lived in the world OSG dreams of, I would slit my wrists.

And here’s the rest of it…

Cool. And I want you to have your "old fashioned" man. I just want to live in a world where I can also have my "modern" man. That doesn't mean all men have to line up to have their balls removed. My man is very, very, manly...trust me.

Choice, choice, choice. If I lived in the world OSG dreams of, I would slit my wrists.


osg has expressed a desire to live in a world where all women are property, with no choice and no freedom, and men rule the roost. For her, this dream world would be paradise as she wouldn’t have to live on the fringe. For me, this dream world would be an oppressive nightmare. I'm not being dramatic, in that world I probably would kill myself. My point was that we are all different and we should all have the freedom and the choice to live in a way that best suits us. osg's dream world would not leave me that option.

For the record, I've lived in parts of the world that were still very "traditional" as far as the roles of men and women are concerned...I have no desire for our society to go back to that. Not solely for my benefit either.

And I’m sorry if you feel as if it is a terrible burden being a “traditional” heterosexual man but as others have mentioned there are many other groups that have it far worse than you. In my experience, your demographic still has it pretty damn good.

When I went out to pursue my career, I did so among groups of men who were vocal about keeping “bitches and niggers” out of the profession. Something tells me most men have never had to deal with this and never will. And other women I grew up around, who followed the traditional path of getting married and having kids, often quitting their jobs to stay home? I never once heard or saw anyone attack them for it.

ETA: Oh and try stating publicly, as a woman under the age of 40 that you don’t want children and you are never going to have them. The reaction you get will tell you everything about how “traditional” societal views still are. If I had a dollar for every time I heard “Oh, you’ll change your mind”, (as if I’m somehow mentally incapable of deciding my reproductive future), I would be writing this from my gold-plated yacht in the Caribbean.

 

[Netzach]

Yes I did. And for good reason. Perhaps as a way for you to understand my perspective of why I used it, While reading through this thread I noticed the following exchange between OSG and Wench. Women who identify as a submissive and a slave.


OSG
it's also particularly odd and disturbing to me that so many people are relegating everyday "vanilla" interactions to the realm of bdsm.

Wench
But these days it seems like any time a man does something with out first defering, then confirming, then reconfirming and finally having the woman sign off on what ever it is he's doing, then he's showing his control over the situation.

To some degree I supose it is a bit "I am man" type of thing, but no more than any "vanilla" was taught for generations before. *shrug*

osg
you said it all right there. it's a sad commentary on our culture.

Now whether you agree or disagree with the views expressed here, I do not think that anything said there is cause for anyone to be attacked. Yet that simple exchange produced these responses.

These are ridiculous statements.

there are some doozies here. Jeeze, a woman orders for herself at a restaurant and now all men are emasculated weaklings ROFL

If I lived in the world OSG dreams of, I would slit my wrists.

I can now see why you like this scene. it absolves you of any personal responsibility, manipulates others into paying for you and providing protection.
------------------

Ok, JM. So I ask you to reread the last statement above again and tell me how that is not a slap in the face and designed to insult a woman who has made a choice to live a slave or submissive lifestyle? How would that not be a slap in the face to any vanilla woman in a traditional household? The other statments....well they could be chalked up to forum banter but I listed them because they are part of what I see as an accumulative effect that adds up to a hostle environment. Why would you want to even participate in any discussion if everything you said was dismissed as ridiculious, meet with mocking sarcasm, or overdramatizations of how people would kill themselves.

Now the person who made the last insulting statement above was Kybele. And I single Kybele out because in my view that post and the follow post seem to stand out to me.

Kybele said to OSG
I can respect perspectives if they are cogently argued. you are unable to do so. I'm not going to 'respect' you because you are basing your world view on a small and slightly skewed way of life........... and you expect that way of life to somehow be mainstream

Now the other reason Kybele gets singled out was the exchange that happened between her and Rosco on this thread.

------------------

Kybele
are these the same as the 'feminized' men rosco et al rant on about? never met any of them either.

Rosco
That's true, I do agree with vetteman on the efeeminization of young middle class males.

Kybele
but it's a chimera. it doesn't exist except in the minds of men of a certain age who feel threatened by what may or may not be post-modernity.


Kybele
now, back to your irrational fear of supposedly effeminised young men....


Rosco
I'm not dodging, just politely overlooking your attempt to marginalise and pathologize from a rather dubious position of authority.


Rosco
Yes, it has been going on for a long time and I don't expect it to stop. I do what I can to resist, but it's like trying to stop the tide.

Kybele
but it's not a 'tide' there is nothing to resist. you are being paranoid.


Rosco
I think we'd agree that the phenomena under discussion are actually happening. We just disagree on the interpretation, which probably comes down to some philosophical thing about the meaning of "female" or "male".

Kybele
but you make it seem it is something that is new. and more to the point something that is a threat. you think that this is marking a change in society. it's not. there is a bit or RW media hype about it (like catching teh ghey a few years back) but it is not new, not increasing and not wiping out masculinity as we know it.

Rosco
If I "make it seem like something new", that's just me having a bit of fun. I disagree about the increasing, and the threat, though.

Kybele
OK, well evidence it increasing or threatening traditional masculinities.

Rosco
The actual efeeminization of young males isn't so much a threat as a symptom of things that are very threatening: great changes in technology, economy and culture that have totally disrupted traditional ways and families. Why do you think that peasants in Afghanistan are fighting a 21st century mechanised army? That's an extreme example, but it certainly serves as evidence that "traditional masculinities" are under threat.

Kybele
maybe I have an issue with what you refer to as 'effeminisation'. I will agree that we are now in this era of post-modernity and that identities have changed as have roles, but there is little to evidence a threat to traditional masculinities, unless you perceive change as threat. But that would then mean defining how masculinities have been theorised and perceived through the ages, which then makes the notion of 'traditional' masculinities defunct, because you then have to choose which tradition you are looking at. Are you looking at 1950s masculinities? 1914 ones? how about 1860s or 1750s? or 1450s? So which masculinities are you talking about? cause they have been changing and evolving since we started painting on walls with blood.

Rosco
Leave it to an academic to think that people go around "theorizing" things.

Kybele
I'll take that as you admitting you have no evidence to base your silly claims upon.

Rosco
The past IS "the 1950s", when that decade is taken as shorthand for "the recent past, in living memory, when things were a good deal different but not unrecognizably so".

The differences between all those different eras that Kybele names are trivial (efeeminizationwise) compared to their differences from today.

In other words, big, recent changes have happened. The pill. Modern divorce law. Labor saving machinery, etc etc etc.


Kybele
no bigger changes than happened during the industrial revolution. and you think that in the 1950s men were men and women just shut up and got fucked? you need to stop watching MadMen and read some social history.

Rosco
I'll give you the industrial revolution, which happened practically yesterday. I don't watch "Mad Men" and you're putting words in my mouth about the 50s.

Kybele
you pulled up the 1950s, though I admit madmen was a cheap shot.

The point I'm trying to make is that you have a mythologised vision of some kind of golden age where men did manly stuff and were strong and women did house-y children-ey stuff and were deferential to men. It never existed except in the movies which of course supported the dominant... hell lets forget cultural hegemony... you know damn well that the shit in films is no more real than little green men.

now you can buy into that ideal, just like some people buy into the ideal of a series of badly written sci-fi novels to base their lives upon, but that doesn't make real. it's an idealised fantasy you are living. Or wanting to live. Women have always been bolshy, difficult and argumentative and men have always bent over backwards to placate them. This is nothing new. and as scary as you may find feminism (and let's face it, fear of feminism is what this is about), it's not out to castrate you or make you less of a man, just allow some privileged women the opportunity of a slightly more level playing field.

Rosco
This all has much more to do with whatever is going on in your own world than anything I ever said. As far as the 50s go, I was just responding to ITW, who brought it up.

My mom would laugh at the "fear of feminism" thing. Let's just say that I was raised by a hard-core Second Waver.


Kybele
My world is your world. you go on about men becoming feminized but you can't back the claim up.

and my mum was also a radical second waver. Set up the first battered wives hostels and hostels for single mothers. My brother is possibly the most misogynistic man you are ever likely to meet. His loathing and contempt for women runs very very deep. So being raised by a feminist doesn't qualify for understanding new man status.

Though I suppose it does mean you can cook, which is a definite bonus!


I find the above exchange to be very revealing. It was never an honest discussion. From the get go, Kybele was baiting Rosco and continued to do so throughout the entire exchange. There were points in the discussion where Rosco did offer what he thought were reasons for the change we see in today's society when you contrast it with the society that existed in 1950.

I sumize that Kybele actually believes in her own mind that she somehow won and probably got a satisfied thrill by getting that one last jab in at the very end. When I add the earlier insults with her entire approach to the above disucssion, I find it hypocritical for her to say that the hostile environment she creates "is" somehow a myth or a product or others imagination.

I think Rosco said it best when he said - "I'm not dodging, just politely overlooking your attempt to marginalise and pathologize from a rather dubious position of authority."

Again, who would want to even enter into a conversation with such a person?



You would be wrong in this interpretation.



In this thread I was not personally attacked, until I spoke up and pointed out the hypocrasy I see in someone talking as if they are an authority on good manners, then personaly attack and show contempt for others, then finish it all off with a bait and switch discussion.




No I am not suggesting any such thing. Are you suggesting that any of them are somehow influencing people to believe that women are somehow inferior or not equal to men?

I think Rosco is able to hold his own

I also think that Rosco lives in the cultural epicenter of the ball-less hipster weenie, skewing the result somewhat .

Kind of like watching SNL and you realize a lot of the world doesn't get the NYC in joke.

This kind of guy exists, though I strongly doubt it's just feminsm run amok that birthed him. In fact I think he's another facet of a sexist culture - if men can't be dominant through active means they go wipe-my-ass passive and remain large children with women happy to mother them. Not exactly a triumph of feminism. The boy hipster douche archetype is really large child not large girl, so I don't get it, other than "women and children" are a cultural unit to traditional masculinities referenced. Telling.

To me - realtionships of duration are ox teams.

A feminist manhood in a capitalist postmodern society is basically another ox you can rely on to pull the fucking yoke if you twist your ankle in a gopher hole and V V. It signals capability, confidence, an ability to nurture, and an ability to listen, and a tendency to give a shit what you think. It's really not that exotic. It's living out a relationship like a golden rule and taking care of one another and being a more agile worker - so that I can take out the garbage or fix the dryer or make more money than him and he can clean the dishes or the bathroom and no one's sense of "all's right on earth" has been disrupted.

My partner wears women's clothing, has acrylic nails, melted down in the traditional workforce and is more or less finding himself as they called it in the seventies.

He also paid our bills, did fucking everything, and complained not one fucking once when I was sick on my ass and useless - for a year.

I'm trying to live up to the kind of person he is all the time and I'm liking him more every day as he figures out who/what he's about with authenticity. I also find I complain more often about everything than he does, and he reacts to that with complete understanding.

I don't know about masculinity but I do know about being a mensch and which matters.

 

[Netzach]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll make a couple comments about women's "traditional" roles in a partnership. I prefer to be in charge of the house and the kitchen. I don't want my submissive telling me how to run either. Those are my areas and I can run them better than him.

I cook more. I do all the cleaning. His idea of cleaning is not the same as mine. I have this same view when I hire girls to come do the cleaning for me. They just can't do it as well as I can. Period.

In my mind, it's a matter of controlling my environment. I clean my house for myself and my pet. I cook meals to nourish myself and my pet. He helps me clean up after a meal and he has certain chores he's in charge of. Other than that, it's all mine.

If one wants to equate that with the dumbing down of women, that's fine with me. I just know if I had anyone else rummaging around in my kitchen and leaving things where I can't find them, I'd have a coronary.

Bette, have your formally been introduced to JM?

 

[Stella_Omega]

OSG
it's also particularly odd and disturbing to me that so many people are relegating everyday "vanilla" interactions to the realm of bdsm.

Wench
But these days it seems like any time a man does something with out first defering, then confirming, then reconfirming and finally having the woman sign off on what ever it is he's doing, then he's showing his control over the situation.

To some degree I supose it is a bit "I am man" type of thing, but no more than any "vanilla" was taught for generations before. *shrug*

osg
you said it all right there. it's a sad commentary on our culture.

Now whether you agree or disagree with the views expressed here, I do not think that anything said there is cause for anyone to be attacked. Yet that simple exchange produced these responses.

These are ridiculous statements.

there are some doozies here. Jeeze, a woman orders for herself at a restaurant and now all men are emasculated weaklings ROFL

If I lived in the world OSG dreams of, I would slit my wrists.

I can now see why you like this scene. it absolves you of any personal responsibility, manipulates others into paying for you and providing protection.

All of those responses seem perfectly justified, to me.

osg's and wench's exchange seem, to me to be extremely rude, considering the FACT that many of the women here, who are part of this conversation, are not submissive and some of us are not, in any way, able to survive in their dream world.

What part of "slit my wrists" strikes you as being rude? To me, it's a flat statement of fact-- if you know Netz, you should know that. And it's a fact that I will corroborate.

Let me address this comment;

To some degree I supose it is a bit "I am man" type of thing, but no more than any "vanilla" was taught for generations before. *shrug*

That's the teaching that I, personally, have battled against for fifty years now, and my mother before me. "I am Man" is a bad thing for far too many women. If Wench and osg want it, they can have it, but if they want to belittle the battles we have fought, they had better NOT do that in my face. That's bad manners.

 

[JMohegan]

Bette, have your formally been introduced to JM?

Hahaha!!

She does seem a kindred spirit, in the general control issues sense. But for the record, I've never felt that a partner's cooking and cleaning skills were inferior to my own. Just the opposite, in fact.

And no, I don't recognize her. BC - welcome aboard.

 

[Keroin]

What part of "slit my wrists" strikes you as being rude? To me, it's a flat statement of fact-- if you know Netz, you should know that. And it's a fact that I will corroborate.

Pssst, that was my comment. Though I'm sure Netz might feel similarly.

 

[ownedsubgal]

RJ, since you’ve painted me as an “attacker”, let me revisit and clarify my statements.

These are ridiculous statements.

That is the bit you quoted. Here is the rest of that post:

Just because large segments of western society have chosen to leave behind outdated social code – which was largely predicated on the idea that women were weaker and less capable than men – doesn’t mean that men have been universally emasculated. What it means is that there are now more options out there as far as acceptable behaviour for both men and women.

For the JM’s and Rosco’s and RJ’s, there are still CM’s, Wenchies and OSG’s and others who appreciate their style of manners. It’s just a matter of personality types finding each other.

Please note that I wrote the “statements” were ridiculous, not that the people making them were. If the latter were true, that would be an attack. What we were doing was having a debate and my experience with both of these women is that they are capable of putting forth ideas and defending them.

If anyone else, (JM, you, Netz, etc), had made the same statements – essentially that a man can’t do anything these days without deferring to a woman and that our entire culture is suffering as a result – I would have responded the same way. I’m not going to pull my punches because the people who made the statements happen to be submissive – that is how I show my respect, by treating them as competent equals.

Here’s the second statement you quoted:

If I lived in the world OSG dreams of, I would slit my wrists.

And here’s the rest of it…

Cool. And I want you to have your "old fashioned" man. I just want to live in a world where I can also have my "modern" man. That doesn't mean all men have to line up to have their balls removed. My man is very, very, manly...trust me.

Choice, choice, choice. If I lived in the world OSG dreams of, I would slit my wrists.


osg has expressed a desire to live in a world where all women are property, with no choice and no freedom, and men rule the roost. For her, this dream world would be paradise as she wouldn’t have to live on the fringe. For me, this dream world would be an oppressive nightmare. I'm not being dramatic, in that world I probably would kill myself. My point was that we are all different and we should all have the freedom and the choice to live in a way that best suits us. osg's dream world would not leave me that option.

Keroin, i get that. and let's put aside for the moment that i was referring to an impossible fantasy..."my" world means just that...not the whole of planet earth, but the patch of humanity in which i function and live. and contrary to the belief of some, my world is not limited to one house in the suburbs of maryland. it's the same world Netz lives in, intothewoods lives in, wenchie lives in, JMohegan lives in, and yes the same world you live in Keroin. and i don't know if this world, at least in the realm of gender roles or male/female relationships, is something close to your ideal or not...but for me it is oppressive. some people do just fine living on "the fringe" as you say, some seem to even thrive that way. i'm not one of those people. it's suffocating, depressing, overwhelming at times. if i didn't have the haven of my Master to turn to, without question i would have checked out many years ago.

you kept emphasizing "choice"...as if it's as simple as everyone finding compatible partners. but life is so much bigger than a romantic relationship. no matter how much i am wanted, loved and valued by one person...i never forget the fact that nearly everything about who i am and what i believe is considered wrong, unacceptable, "dysfunctional" in the eyes of the society in which i live. it's impossible to forget, as it's thrown in my face everyday. JMohegan doesn't even believe i have a valid perspective to offer...not as a member of society, not as a submissive. and he's just one of many, and representative of mainstream values and ideas in that respect. and again, this is the world in which i must live and function...talk about hostile. so heck yes, it makes me wish we had the means and freedom to go someplace, any place, where we could just BE. where i wasn't regarded as a freak or crazy person, and where maybe even i could actually be considered an acceptable member of society. you know, like a valid and worthwhile human being. i don't want you to live in that world Keroin, i just wish i could live there.

 

[teknight]

Pssst, that was my comment. Though I'm sure Netz might feel similarly.

You know what? I wouldn't wanna live in that kind of world either. So, if we ever became that stupid as a society, I'm slitting my wrists too. (Don't fuck up, humanity! I like living).

This whole conversation is centered around labels. Quite frankly, I reject the label of man as a domineering jerk (regardless of how much value a few find in such a troglodyte). If that's what you want, more power to you, but institutionalizing this has been and would be EVIL and I reject it. So, ladies, step up to the plate.

 

[Keroin]

i don't want you to live in that world Keroin, i just wish i could live there.

I wish you could have that, too.

Not sure what the issue is?

That I like the idea of choice? That I wish everyone could have the world they wanted/needed?

RJ asserted that I was being hostile to you and Wenchie. I assert that I was merely debating and discussing my ideas the same way I would with any member of this forum. I stand by my assertion.

 

[JMohegan]

JMohegan doesn't even believe i have a valid perspective to offer...not as a member of society, not as a submissive.

Assuming that your bio, as presented, is true, you do have a valid perspective to offer. Ever human being does.

However, it is not valid for you to equate your perspective with that of a submissive or traditional-minded woman who is able to function in society at large, and does so on a regular basis.

If every person with a cunt was unable to leave the house unaccompanied, society would come to a grinding halt. Calling such a person dysfunctional is not the same thing as labeling that person crazy or freakish. It is a simple statement of fact.

 

[teknight]

...but for me it is oppressive. some people do just fine living on "the fringe" as you say, some seem to even thrive that way. i'm not one of those people. it's suffocating, depressing, overwhelming at times. if i didn't have the haven of my Master to turn to, without question i would have checked out many years ago.

I'm sorry that you don't fit in anywhere, but how are we responsible for how you feel? Should we embrace you (and any other extreme view point, lest the person espousing them have hurt feelings?
If women as whole were put down by men, and hated it (or those benighted amongst them, those who chose not to live an unexamined life, pointed it out how and why it was awful) then society had to change.
If you want acceptance for your brand of submissiveness, there are places in the world where the question wouldn't even come up.

... where i wasn't regarded as a freak or crazy person, and where maybe even i could actually be considered an acceptable member of society. you know, like a valid and worthwhile human being. i don't want you to live in that world Keroin, i just wish i could live there.

The question then really is: at point is society wrong for expecting a certain viewpoint, and at what point does the individual become responsible for their own views?

 

[JMohegan]

I'm sorry that you don't fit in anywhere, but how are we responsible for how you feel? Should we embrace you (and any other extreme view point, lest the person espousing them have hurt feelings?
If women as whole were put down by men, and hated it (or those benighted amongst them, those who chose not to live an unexamined life, pointed it out how and why it was awful) then society had to change.
If you want acceptance for your brand of submissiveness, there are places in the world where the question wouldn't even come up.


The question then really is: at point is society wrong for expecting a certain viewpoint, and at what point does the individual become responsible for their own views?

No. The real question is: why should someone, who would strip others of their rights to self-determination, solely on the basis of gender, be treated as the victim in this discussion?

This is not a debate on abstract notions of general societal acceptance. We're talking about a zero-sum game here. Either the tangible rules of society apply equally to both genders, or they do not.

And just so we're clear about the implications of this discussion, below are a couple of posts from another thread. Linkable, in case anyone wants to view them in context.

So I ask you. Should someone promulgating those views be treated as a victim, simply because those views are outnumbered?

I think not.

but to answer your question in a general sense, what rights do i feel a fem should give up upon marriage or other legally binding contract? well for starters, the right to an abortion without the male partner's consent, the right to open a personal bank account without the male partner's consent, the right to cry rape when sex takes place without mutual consent, and many, many other things running the gamut from financial contracts to domestic interaction.

it is not that i condone marital rape, it is more that i do not recognize the concept of marital rape.

 

[teknight]

No. The real question is: why should someone, who would strip others of their rights to self-determination, solely on the basis of gender, be treated as the victim in this discussion?

This is not a debate on abstract notions of general societal acceptance. We're talking about a zero-sum game here. Either the tangible rules of society apply equally to both genders, or they do not.

And just so we're clear about the implications of this discussion, below are a couple of posts from another thread. Linkable, in case anyone wants to view them in context.

So I ask you. Should someone promulgating those views be treated as a victim, simply because those views are outnumbered?

I think not.

Ah, ignorance, you slap me in the face once again. I tried to give a ...measured response, lacking appropriate information. I've not really been keeping track of OSG's posts, so I've missed out on her more explicitly ludicrous claims.

 

[intothewoods]

I think Rosco is able to hold his own

I also think that Rosco lives in the cultural epicenter of the ball-less hipster weenie, skewing the result somewhat .

Kind of like watching SNL and you realize a lot of the world doesn't get the NYC in joke.

This kind of guy exists, though I strongly doubt it's just feminsm run amok that birthed him. In fact I think he's another facet of a sexist culture - if men can't be dominant through active means they go wipe-my-ass passive and remain large children with women happy to mother them. Not exactly a triumph of feminism. The boy hipster douche archetype is really large child not large girl, so I don't get it, other than "women and children" are a cultural unit to traditional masculinities referenced. Telling.

To me - realtionships of duration are ox teams.

A feminist manhood in a capitalist postmodern society is basically another ox you can rely on to pull the fucking yoke if you twist your ankle in a gopher hole and V V. It signals capability, confidence, an ability to nurture, and an ability to listen, and a tendency to give a shit what you think. It's really not that exotic. It's living out a relationship like a golden rule and taking care of one another and being a more agile worker - so that I can take out the garbage or fix the dryer or make more money than him and he can clean the dishes or the bathroom and no one's sense of "all's right on earth" has been disrupted.

My partner wears women's clothing, has acrylic nails, melted down in the traditional workforce and is more or less finding himself as they called it in the seventies.

He also paid our bills, did fucking everything, and complained not one fucking once when I was sick on my ass and useless - for a year.

I'm trying to live up to the kind of person he is all the time and I'm liking him more every day as he figures out who/what he's about with authenticity. I also find I complain more often about everything than he does, and he reacts to that with complete understanding.

I don't know about masculinity but I do know about being a mensch and which matters.

Excellent post, especially your point about hipster douchebags as overgrown kids. See also millenials. Ok, unfair swipe - except that maybe my secret prejudice against millenials is really just against the douchebag portion. That makes me feel better about my aged gen-X self.

Keroin, i get that. and let's put aside for the moment that i was referring to an impossible fantasy..."my" world means just that...not the whole of planet earth, but the patch of humanity in which i function and live. and contrary to the belief of some, my world is not limited to one house in the suburbs of maryland. it's the same world Netz lives in, intothewoods lives in, wenchie lives in, JMohegan lives in, and yes the same world you live in Keroin. and i don't know if this world, at least in the realm of gender roles or male/female relationships, is something close to your ideal or not...but for me it is oppressive. some people do just fine living on "the fringe" as you say, some seem to even thrive that way. i'm not one of those people. it's suffocating, depressing, overwhelming at times. if i didn't have the haven of my Master to turn to, without question i would have checked out many years ago.

You are saying that your world is the patch of humanity in which you function and live, but at the same time we are all in the same world and that "this world" is oppressive. There is a disconnect between the way you describe what's normal and what I and others are saying is common or normal.

you kept emphasizing "choice"...as if it's as simple as everyone finding compatible partners. but life is so much bigger than a romantic relationship. no matter how much i am wanted, loved and valued by one person...i never forget the fact that nearly everything about who i am and what i believe is considered wrong, unacceptable, "dysfunctional" in the eyes of the society in which i live. it's impossible to forget, as it's thrown in my face everyday. JMohegan doesn't even believe i have a valid perspective to offer...not as a member of society, not as a submissive. and he's just one of many, and representative of mainstream values and ideas in that respect. and again, this is the world in which i must live and function...talk about hostile. so heck yes, it makes me wish we had the means and freedom to go someplace, any place, where we could just BE. where i wasn't regarded as a freak or crazy person, and where maybe even i could actually be considered an acceptable member of society. you know, like a valid and worthwhile human being. i don't want you to live in that world Keroin, i just wish i could live there.

From everything he's written, JM's relationships aren't representative of mainstream relationships either. Most women around my age do not want to defer to a man in terms of how joint monies will be spent or where they go on vacation. Especially that first one (JM - please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you did say you prefer to control the finances). But that doesn't mean most men don't want to be told what to do either! My husband is the final word on finances, and I keep that detail to myself. I'm sure you do feel like you don't quite fit in anywhere. Most people can relate to feeling like an outsider some of the time. The more aspects of your life that are out-of-the-box, the more you will feel this way. If an out gender queer poly family sent their kid to the school my kid attends, they'd feel like total freaks too because they'd be the only ones at the school.

Assuming that your bio, as presented, is true, you do have a valid perspective to offer. Ever human being does.

However, it is not valid for you to equate your perspective with that of a submissive or traditional-minded woman who is able to function in society at large, and does so on a regular basis.

If every person with a cunt was unable to leave the house unaccompanied, society would come to a grinding halt. Calling such a person dysfunctional is not the same thing as labeling that person crazy or freakish. It is a simple statement of fact.

I have to say, when one thinks of a traditional-minded woman, one doesn't typically think of a sex worker. No judgments on sex work from me, but I'm perhaps not a traditional-minded woman.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No. The real question is: why should someone, who would strip others of their rights to self-determination, solely on the basis of gender, be treated as the victim in this discussion?

This is not a debate on abstract notions of general societal acceptance. We're talking about a zero-sum game here. Either the tangible rules of society apply equally to both genders, or they do not.

And just so we're clear about the implications of this discussion, below are a couple of posts from another thread. Linkable, in case anyone wants to view them in context.

So I ask you. Should someone promulgating those views be treated as a victim, simply because those views are outnumbered?

I think not.

I do not see osg as a victim.

SHE wants a world in which she has no rights, and waddaya know-- she lives in that world. She's got it all set up, exactly as she wants it to be. And if she's the least bit discreet about it, no one will even blink twice when she and her Master are in public, because to all appearances they are a normal hetero couple. Any little behavior quirks are deniable.

She doesn't get approbation from the vanilla world? Big whoop. None of us do. That's not her very own patented sorrow.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I wish you could have that, too.

Not sure what the issue is?

That I like the idea of choice? That I wish everyone could have the world they wanted/needed?

RJ asserted that I was being hostile to you and Wenchie. I assert that I was merely debating and discussing my ideas the same way I would with any member of this forum. I stand by my assertion.

well i do feel that some of your responses to myself and others have been hostile, though i can also believe that for you it wasn't/isn't that personal. your hostility/negativity is directed toward certain viewpoints and beliefs with which you vehemently disagree or find plain deplorable....not toward any particular person or people. however when a subject hits close to someone's sense of self, hurt feelings will sometimes result. nothing really anyone can do about that, besides of course cease interacting with other people altogether.

and in case it means anything to you, while i have definitely been stung by words throughout the course of this thread, yours are not among them.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I'm sure you do feel like you don't quite fit in anywhere. Most people can relate to feeling like an outsider some of the time. The more aspects of your life that are out-of-the-box, the more you will feel this way. If an out gender queer poly family sent their kid to the school my kid attends, they'd feel like total freaks too because they'd be the only ones at the school.

yes, a lot of other people on the planet don't fit in with their society at large and feel like freaks. i'm not the only one. i'm quite aware of that...clearly i'm missing the point you were trying to make here.

I have to say, when one thinks of a traditional-minded woman, one doesn't typically think of a sex worker. No judgments on sex work from me, but I'm perhaps not a traditional-minded woman.

yes, sometimes i'm whored out. it is not the epicenter of my sex life as some seem intent on making it out to be, but it is certainly an aspect of it. to be honest i have no idea what, if anything, would define "traditional" sex...as in the specifics of sexual behavior and activities themselves. i think "traditionally" that would just be nobody's gosh darn business, and not something discussed at the supermarket or PTA meeting.

also to be clear i don't hold myself up as a "model" of old-fashionedness or submissiveness or anything else. and i certainly acknowledge and accept the fact that certain aspects of my sexuality would probably be perversions no matter what the culture in which i lived. perhaps they may be a little less so, but there would always be things that are just a bit off. that doesn't bother me. i am not defined by sex acts. what bothers me is having the core aspects of who i am attacked, ridiculed, and just in general unaccepted by the mainstream.

There is a disconnect between the way you describe what's normal and what I and others are saying is common or normal.

and that is because despite the fact that we all share this little corner of the world, there will be differences in experiences...differences related to culture, economics, and goodness knows what else. going all the way back to the OP, i do not view it as abnormal for a man to order for a woman at a restaurant, especially with the situation as described where he is not actually choosing for her but really just speaking up on her behalf. the reasons i do not consider it abnormal are not related to my life with my Master (i recognize anything i express from that perspective will instantly be relegated to "not normal" by most here)...they are due to experiences dining out with "vanilla" men. and if that is difficult for some to believe, perhaps that is because their backgrounds have led to some drastically different experiences. it does not mean that i have no concept of "normal"...or at least, as much as anyone else.

 

[YourCaptor]

I thought Kybele was the bad one in this thread.

K and whoever else was blamed, they may have used a few harsh words, but whatever, it happens when views collided. I don’t think they got to OSG at all, in fact I think she welcomes the opportunity to potentially bridge some of these gaps.

Kybele however totally wrote off OSGs view as having any validity, accused her of being and attention seeker and proceeded to ridicule OSGs life.

That’s fucked up.

However I know OSG is an impressive little girl and this is nothing on her, just more dirt to get through. It will take a lot more to slow her down.

In case some of you haven’t recognized it, she’s here not to throw an odd fitting wrench into every discussion, she’s here to represent a part of the D/s spectrum that doesn’t get much light. I think she does a damn good job of it too. If she wasn’t here, any discussion into TPE, 24/7, M/s would instantly sink in an angry swarm of posters. She keeps the issue upfront, and the more people see it, the less of a shock value it has.