Snippet: A Burning Sensation

[angela146]

I really think there is a "birth order" issue here.

Both my husband and were oldest children of several.

I never had the sense, growing up, of someone "taking care" of me. I was the one who was responsible to take care of my younger brothers and sisters. Bill was the same way in his family.

For both of us, there wasn't a gender distinction. Bill, for example, wasn't expected to take care of his sisters and to somehow help his brothers to learn how to take care of themselves. The roles seemed more assigned based on our being oldest rather than because of gender.

As for my "training" Bill in his new role... It was more of a case of freeing him to be able to do something that he was previously "trained" not to do. The idea of dominating a woman and inflicting physical punishment on her was anathema to him.

In a sense, I had to demonstrate that I was strong enough so that I was really doing this willingly (rather than because I felt it was "my place"). I had to show him that it was something I desired, rather than something that I felt was my obligation as a woman.

In the beginning, Bill wanted a relationship as equals. When I wanted him to "take charge" of me, he instinctively tried to enable me to take charge of myself (in the way that Stella suggests that girls/women ought to be encouraged).

In fact, I already had that. I had spent my first eighteen years "in charge" on an involuntary basis and wanted to be able to let go of all that. But, in order to do that, I had to not only convince Bill that it was OK for him to do it, I *also* had to show him how much fun it could be for him *and* I had to convince him to allow himself to enjoy it.

To him, it was kind of like a narcotic. It felt too good. It was too much fun. He "knew" in his heart that he shouldn't be enjoying it - that he should be encouraging me to be an equal.

One of the things that made it possible for him was the fact that I was so powerful in my career from the beginning. He could see me in my role as an independent consultant, running my own business, and making lots more money than him.

That meant that I had my own "power base". He could see that there was a kind of ultimate checks-and-balances thing. If I had been a stay-at-home mom making minimum wage selling Tupperware part time (extreme example), he would have felt that there was no "check" on his authority over me.

He didn't mind dominating a woman who was "dangerous" in her own right, someone who could pull the plug on his authority if she decided she wanted to.

In theory, if he got carried away with dominating me and crossed the line into abuse, I could leave him. I would be financially secure and able to take care of myself. The reality, however, is that I need his emotional strength to keep me on an even keel.

I can't be "super consultant woman" without my strong man at home to fall back on (and go over the lap of) when my self-confidence crashes or I get manicky.

This story represents a portion of that dynamic. Every once in a while, I need to push him over the edge and get him to let loose all of his feelings of male privilege on me.

I don't want him to feel like he's missing out on *anything* because of being married to me. At the same time, there is a rush of excitement in feeling the uncivilized man inside him.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Certainly it releases a new dynamic into a relationship when so strong a woman chooses to be a submissive. Being of the generation older than you, the likelihood of such a thing happening in my family is nil. However, bit by bit interesting things seem to be happening. I look forward to whatever revelations you choose to make and however pale the imitation I may make, possibly let Hot Mama feel a little of the rush you get from your love play. Salude, cara mia!

 

[angela146]

And yet, strangely enough, when the time comes to look after ailing and elderly parents it's usually the daughters who end up doing the taking care of...

Well, it won't be this daughter. If my parents want someone to take care of them, they had better make sure that one of my sisters (or brothers) can find it in their heart to do it.

It seems to be hardwired into my brain to care for other people, I can;t help myself. Sometimes my feministic instincts come out and kick me on the shins for conforming so utterly to so many feminine stereotypes, but equally they would bash me on the head if I tried to be something I'm not just to make a point. True feminism is about being able to choose the path that fits you best.

And with this totally unrelated non sequitur of a post...xV

No, there is a sequitur here.

I happen to agree with you about the true nature of feminism. However, there are a lot of self-described feminists that expect us to conform to their *new* feminist stereotypes, rather than just freeing us from the old feminine stereotypes.

The term "choice feminist" is a derisive in some corners.

For me, however, the ultimate form of feminism is that I have the right to be an equal, but I also have the right to enjoy the romance of obedience to my husband.

 

[angela146]

Certainly it releases a new dynamic into a relationship when so strong a woman chooses to be a submissive.

I think the submission itself gives me a lot of my strength.

Sometimes when I get nervous going into an important meeting with a client, I remind myself that if I don't get this right, my husband is going to punish me. That thought releases a lot of tension.

Being of the generation older than you, the likelihood of such a thing happening in my family is nil. However, bit by bit interesting things seem to be happening. I look forward to whatever revelations you choose to make and however pale the imitation I may make, possibly let Hot Mama feel a little of the rush you get from your love play. Salude, cara mia!

Smooch.

Since physical pain is a trigger for your lady, you might want to try using your stern baritone voice.

Maybe command her to do things. Or, maybe scold her when she does something that displeases you, but do it in a stern thundering looming-over-her kind of way, not a threatening way.

If you do command her to do something, it would probably help to not have an implied threat. In other words, don't say "or else". Just tell her to do something and leave out the "or" part of the equation.

If she asks "Why?" simply answer "because I want you to" or "because I said so" or "because it would please me".

One thing that drives me wild is when my husband snaps his fingers and then points to the floor in front of him. There are no words, no threats, just an expectation that I will immediately kneel before him on that spot and - well, you can imagine the rest.

My heart skips a beat when I hear him snap his fingers, even two rooms away.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And yet, strangely enough, when the time comes to look after ailing and elderly parents it's usually the daughters who end up doing the taking care of...

It seems to be hardwired into my brain to care for other people, I can;t help myself. Sometimes my feministic instincts come out and kick me on the shins for conforming so utterly to so many feminine stereotypes, but equally they would bash me on the head if I tried to be something I'm not just to make a point. True feminism is about being able to choose the path that fits you best.

And with this totally unrelated non sequitur of a post...

x
V

Yes, able to choose. Of course, it's a rare human being who gets to choose their path completely-- male or female.

Or at least as it does.

And yet, when a group of young women about to graduate from a Ivy League University were asked whether they wanted to be independent career women or taken care of, the answer was "Yes, both. Sorry . . . " So in spite of whatever we may profess to believe, we still find comfort in traditional roles and want to adhere to them no matter how much we protest. I suppose so long as we are both aware of what we're doing we can manage, somehow.

Was the same question asked of the young men? "Would you like to be independent career men, or would you prefer to be taken care of? "

"yes, both, sorry..."

How about; "Would you prefer to be independent and career-oriented, or would you prefer to have a partnership with a significant other? "

"Yes, both."

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Was the same question asked of the young men? "Would you like to be independent career men, or would you prefer to be taken care of? "

"yes, both, sorry..."

How about; "Would you prefer to be independent and career-oriented, or would you prefer to have a partnership with a significant other? "

"Yes, both."

Probably not. As I recall it was done at a women's college, you know one of those things men aren't supposed to be allowed to have but which are considered necessary for upper-class white women's development. I suspect that the professor found the answers deeply disappointing.

To be honest, I can't imagine why a young man wouldn't want anything different than a partnership. I think it's what we have and like Angela pointed out, it's what Bill wanted so badly that it took her two years to show him that there are times for partnership and times for dominence, if that's what the partner wants. Forty years ago or so there was little paperback written by a woman who had put herself through graduate school as a stripper. Her position was that there are roles that are socially satisifying and other ones that are personally satisfying and that each segment of our lives are separate. The right to equal pay, equal political power and equal influence in society in no way negated the desire to be her man's most prized possession. I'll bet a lot of women don't get treared as well as dumb hubby's favorite car. She may have had a point, for all I know.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Probably not, indeed! Otherwise, it would have been reported...

It's not fair to make a value judgement about women based on a question which only women were asked, is my point. I'd like to point out that you didn't even consider that men weren't asked this.

That's one example of the privilege that you don't notice; your own assumption that men are of course free agents, and that women's choices-- for or against-- are remarkable.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Probably not, indeed! Otherwise, it would have been reported...

It's not fair to make a value judgement about women based on a question which only women were asked, is my point. I'd like to point out that you didn't even consider that men weren't asked this.

That's one example of the privilege that you don't notice; your own assumption that men are of course free agents, and that women's choices-- for or against-- are remarkable.

My report wasn't a value judgement, merely an observation. Naturally, underlying the observation were the values inherent. Mostly I am bemused by the world. So many positions taken are based on certainties that I find non-existant. I won't claim to be entirely comfortable with the ambiguous, yet, but I'm working on it and unvalued observations are part of that ambiguity. It does produce a strong sense of the irony of life.

Men are free agents? From what? Every decision made has its cost and one must be ready to accept the consequences that follow. Whatever I do will have it's price. How is that a free agent?

 

[Stella_Omega]

My report wasn't a value judgement, merely an observation. Naturally, underlying the observation were the values inherent. Mostly I am bemused by the world. So many positions taken are based on certainties that I find non-existant. I won't claim to be entirely comfortable with the ambiguous, yet, but I'm working on it and unvalued observations are part of that ambiguity. It does produce a strong sense of the irony of life.

The value judgement is inherent in the question the women were asked. The value is made apparent by the fact that men were not asked the same question (and made further apparent in that no one has thought to ask men that question yet!).

Men are free agents? From what? Every decision made has its cost and one must be ready to accept the consequences that follow. Whatever I do will have it's price. How is that a free agent?

You are presumed, by default, to have the ability to make those decisions, and deal with those consequences.

Again, male privilege does not work well for any individual man. What it does do, though, is create a social norm that makes the parts that do work-- work better. And it makes the attempts, by women, to use those parts-- more difficult.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The value judgement is inherent in the question the women were asked. The value is made apparent by the fact that men were not asked the same question (and made further apparent in that no one has thought to ask men that question yet!). You are presumed, by default, to have the ability to make those decisions, and deal with those consequences.

Again, male privilege does not work well for any individual man. What it does do, though, is create a social norm that makes the parts that do work-- work better. And it makes the attempts, by women, to use those parts-- more difficult.

If you say so. Not being female, I have no way to contest this. BTW, the question was asked at a women's college by a woman professor. Does that have any bearing? Just want to know . . .

 

[Stella_Omega]

If you say so. Not being female, I have no way to contest this.

Wise words!

BTW, the question was asked at a women's college by a woman professor. Does that have any bearing? Just want to know . . .

Not really. Really, the main point is the way that you didn't think of my objection before I did... on account of men don't get asked stuff like that.

I hope you don't think I'm attacking, Bear? It isn't you. It isn't any single, particular, man out there-- it's something so systemic that it will take a couple more lifetimes of effort before we see the final changes. My son gets to have male privilege. There's nothing he can do to stop it being offered to him.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Wise words! Not really. Really, the main point is the way that you didn't think of my objection before I did... on account of men don't get asked stuff like that.

I hope you don't think I'm attacking, Bear? It isn't you. It isn't any single, particular, man out there-- it's something so systemic that it will take a couple more lifetimes of effort before we see the final changes. My son gets to have male privilege. There's nothing he can do to stop it being offered to him.

Oh dear no,
I know better than to take things like this personally. It is, however, the kind of thing that would never come up in conversation with any other woman I know. Remember, I'm a teacher and though I live in a world of women, mostly, schoolteachers are really pretty traditional in their personal lives. They're like the stripper with the Ph.D. Socially they may very well be in favor of improved justice in society but one of the reasons they became teachers is that it's almost the ideal job for a woman who wants both a career and a family. Personal isn't the same thing as professional. When I get down to writing Branx next month may I run certain passages by you for just this kind of thing? I'm proposing that the events take place by the end of this century. However, human lifespan will have been dramatically increased for those who can afford it so there should still this conflict between attitudes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'd be pleased and proud.

I was thinking about that-- that you work in one of the few professions that is 'overrun' with women!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'd be pleased and proud.

I was thinking about that-- that you work in one of the few professions that is 'overrun' with women!

And just to back up your position about priviledge, if there were a lot more men in teaching, we'd get paid better and have a lot more political clout. But most guys don't want to play with kids. Fools . . .

 

[Stella_Omega]

And just to back up your position about priviledge, if there were a lot more men in teaching, we'd get paid better and have a lot more political clout. But most guys don't want to play with kids. Fools . . .

I'v been told that veterinarians make less money than they used to-- and more women are now vets than used to be. The cause-and-effect could go either way, but it's my bet that the wages began to drop, and fewer men felt it worthwhile to begin in that profession-- allowing women to get into the schools in greater numbers.

 

[Vermilion]

And just to back up your position about priviledge, if there were a lot more men in teaching, we'd get paid better and have a lot more political clout. But most guys don't want to play with kids. Fools . . .

And yet, even in teaching, there are 'masculine subjects' and 'feminine subjects'... the Fiance is training to become a physics teacher - very well paid. I have a female friend who's an English teacher. Not so well paid.

Plus ca change...

x
V

 

[angela146]

But let's be clear on the choices that men *don't* have, or at least choices that they can only make if they are willing to be subject to severe societal ridicule.

A woman is allowed to be a stay-at-home mom. Men are not allowed to be stay-at-home dads *unless* they have some kind of well paying career that they can do at home.

If male students had been asked if they wanted to be A. independent and career-oriented or if they wanted to be B. married and taken care of... the laughter that ensued would have brought the house down.

Men don't have choice B. They only have choices A, C (be married and take care of a wife) or D (be married and have a working wife).

In the eyes of most of society, men *must* work. A man who "lives off of his wife" isn't a man or is a "good for nothing husband".

It isn't easy for Bill at times. He *is* an English/History teacher (in high school) and, yes, that is a field dominated by women (English more so than History). In order to withstand the snickering and comments like "so, you couldn't find a real job?", he has to be strong and confident in himself.

Of course, there's the old fallback, "What else was I going to do with a degree in English and History?" but there is still a social undercurrent of disapproval for a man who earns less than his wife.

 

[angela146]

Again, male privilege does not work well for any individual man. What it does do, though, is create a social norm that makes the parts that do work-- work better. And it makes the attempts, by women, to use those parts-- more difficult.

I think there may be some generational differences here.

Women of my generation (GenX) and those of later generations are under different kinds of pressure. There are plenty of women of our mothers' generation hounding us to put career first - to postpone marriage until we have our own economic power etc.

The idea of being a wife and mother is seen as a betrayal of "all the women who went before and made it possible for us..."

In my own specific case, the pressure came mostly from my father. He had mapped out my future, beginning with four years in one of the military academies and rising up through the ranks to someday be the first woman CNO or JCS Chief.

It was difficult for me to push away from them and "let them down" by going to a small (but elite) liberal-arts college. Then, God forbid, I got married while still in college, thus forever ruining my prospects for an independent career.

I'll say this, however. It is still difficult for a woman to try to "fit in" in a man's world. But that difficulty usually comes from trying to do things the way a man would. It works much better to actually *be* a woman and not play by the men's rules.

The problem is that there aren't a lot of women out there to teach us how to be successful *and* be women at the same time. Most of the successful women of the previous generation got there by either emulating men or forcing the workplace to change to accommodate them.

We need to show the next generation of women how to lead rather than emulate or fight, i.e. how to set our own example and have others follow us rather than trying to fit ourselves into the standard mold.

Again, this sounds like I'm going off on a tangent, but really I'm not. The stresses of leadership and the relationship dynamics caused by economic imbalance are part of the driving force behind the story in my OP.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'll say this, however. It is still difficult for a woman to try to "fit in" in a man's world. But that difficulty usually comes from trying to do things the way a man would. It works much better to actually *be* a woman and not play by the men's rules.

Hmm. Can you give me a specific example?

The problem is that there aren't a lot of women out there to teach us how to be successful *and* be women at the same time. Most of the successful women of the previous generation got there by either emulating men or forcing the workplace to change to accommodate them.

That's the truth! Womanly behaviour, as it was defined back then, was pretty useless in the workplace. The parameters of *Being* a woman have changed. But you know, Angela, it's still tough. Try restating your thoughts to address another area of social imbalance;

I'll say this, however. It is still difficult for a black person to try to "fit in" in a white world. But that difficulty usually comes from trying to do things the way a white person would. It works much better to actually *be* black and not play by the white rules.

The problem is that there aren't a lot of black people out there to teach us how to be successful *and* be black at the same time. Most of the successful blacks of the previous generation got there by either emulating whites or forcing the workplace to change to accommodate them.

Kinda-sorta doesn't make sense, does it? Sounds kinda... patronising.

 

[Vermilion]

Hmm. Can you give me a specific example?
That's the truth! Womanly behaviour, as it was defined back then, was pretty useless in the workplace. The parameters of *Being* a woman have changed. But you know, Angela, it's still tough. Try restating your thoughts to address another area of social imbalance;

I'll say this, however. It is still difficult for a black person to try to "fit in" in a white world. But that difficulty usually comes from trying to do things the way a white person would. It works much better to actually *be* black and not play by the white rules.

The problem is that there aren't a lot of black people out there to teach us how to be successful *and* be black at the same time. Most of the successful blacks of the previous generation got there by either emulating whites or forcing the workplace to change to accommodate them.

Kinda-sorta doesn't make sense, does it? Sounds kinda... patronising.

Well that's all well and good, but men and women do process things differently and they do respond to things differently. A black man has more in common with a white man, than a woman does with a man as far as business practice and working with other people goes.
I realise I may not be putting this very well, but in general it is accepted that women are more likely to empathise, right? If they use this empathy as a way fo dealing with a business-related problem then that is a way of using a feminine trait to deal with a problem in a womanly way. How does the colour of your skin affect how you to relate to people? Changing 'woman' to 'black' just doesn;t work, because whilst women have different brains and hormones to men, black people don;t have different brains and hormones to white people which kinda sorta makes your comments look racist if they are to be taken that way.

x
V


ps - would just like to point out that this post comes with several disclaimers.
1- I know that not all women are more empathetic than all men, I refer to the general here and I realise that there are exceptions.
2- I love Stella, am not implying she's racist, just merely testing out the courage of my convictions to have a little debate, because I actually agree with Angela's points and since she hasn't been online yet, I thought I'd respond instead
3- I'm not very well and my brain feels like it's padded with cotton wool. It is entirely possible that I have been incoherent or have missed a cogent point. If so then please point it out gently and considerately, otherwise I might cry

 

[voluptuary_manque]

If this discussion, and I mean discussion not debate because I don't consider it a debate, can be continued with sufficient research into whatever literature may exist it will result in a serious book on the evolution of male/female relationships in America. I hope it does. I'm finding this very interesting, indeed, and expect to learn a great deal from it. Keep it up, Angela, Stella, Crim, this part of your audience is sitting on the edge of his computer chair.

Yeah, I'm home and back in the computer chair. Don't expect much traffic after Hot Mama gets home from work or tomorrow, for that matter. Damn, I'm glad I'm home!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well that's all well and good, but men and women do process things differently and they do respond to things differently. A black man has more in common with a white man, than a woman does with a man as far as business practice and working with other people goes.
I realise I may not be putting this very well, but in general it is accepted that women are more likely to empathise, right? If they use this empathy as a way fo dealing with a business-related problem then that is a way of using a feminine trait to deal with a problem in a womanly way. How does the colour of your skin affect how you to relate to people? Changing 'woman' to 'black' just doesn;t work, because whilst women have different brains and hormones to men, black people don;t have different brains and hormones to white people which kinda sorta makes your comments look racist if they are to be taken that way.

First the racism; Yes, the comment would make anyone look racist that said it. That's the point. And yes, far many generations, people did think-- and say out loud-- that blacks had different brains than whites. Hell, some of them still whisper it to themselves. And lots of us still act as if we thought that.

and now back to sexism; Although it's true that women are generally more empathic then men, I am not positive it's a given. I'm watching my son and daughter my husband and myself-- as I say this. As you point out, not all...

Now that I've had a night's sleep, too, I can address this better:

Men don't have choice B. They only have choices A, C (be married and take care of a wife) or D (be married and have a working wife).

In the eyes of most of society, men *must* work. A man who "lives off of his wife" isn't a man or is a "good for nothing husband".

I think you'll find that by "society" you mean men. And women who feel that men should support them. And those women must be supported by men because they have no ability to do so themselves.

It's been hard, hurtful work to bring women into view as humans. We have a lot of hard, hurtful work ahead. Yes, it's difficult for men to buck the role that's been assigned to them-- Nobody said it would be easy! Women can support these guys (emotionally and politically, if not financially) but men have to do so as well. Even if it's not your personal choice.

Ummm... maybe my brain is just never going to wake up today!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

But let's be clear on the choices that men *don't* have, or at least choices that they can only make if they are willing to be subject to severe societal ridicule.

A woman is allowed to be a stay-at-home mom. Men are not allowed to be stay-at-home dads *unless* they have some kind of well paying career that they can do at home.

If male students had been asked if they wanted to be A. independent and career-oriented or if they wanted to be B. married and taken care of... the laughter that ensued would have brought the house down.

Men don't have choice B. They only have choices A, C (be married and take care of a wife) or D (be married and have a working wife).

In the eyes of most of society, men *must* work. A man who "lives off of his wife" isn't a man or is a "good for nothing husband".

It isn't easy for Bill at times. He *is* an English/History teacher (in high school) and, yes, that is a field dominated by women (English more so than History). In order to withstand the snickering and comments like "so, you couldn't find a real job?", he has to be strong and confident in himself.

Of course, there's the old fallback, "What else was I going to do with a degree in English and History?" but there is still a social undercurrent of disapproval for a man who earns less than his wife.

First the racism; Yes, the comment would make anyone look racist that said it. That's the point. And yes, far many generations, people did think-- and say out loud-- that blacks had different brains than whites. Hell, some of them still whisper it to themselves. And lots of us still act as if we thought that.

and now back to sexism; Although it's true that women are generally more empathic then men, I am not positive it's a given. I'm watching my son and daughter my husband and myself-- as I say this. As you point out, not all...

Now that I've had a night's sleep, too, I can address this better:
I think you'll find that by "society" you mean men. And women who feel that men should support them. And those women must be supported by men because they have no ability to do so themselves.

It's been hard, hurtful work to bring women into view as humans. We have a lot of hard, hurtful work ahead. Yes, it's difficult for men to buck the role that's been assigned to them-- Nobody said it would be easy! Women can support these guys (emotionally and politically, if not financially) but men have to do so as well. Even if it's not your personal choice.

Ummm... maybe my brain is just never going to wake up today!

I accept Angela's analysis about choices A, C, and D but I'm far from convinced that there is something "feminine" about teaching. At least most the people I talk to, when I tell them I teach 6th grade their usual comment is along the lines of "You're a brave man!" Personally I find 12-year-olds comical but perhaps that's due to warped sense of humor. Addtionally, even though there are an abnormal number of male teachers in my elementary school (4 out of 20) I'm probably the alpha male even though the principal is also a man. Why do I get deferred to?

And my wife usually makes more in a year than I do. The amount of overtime she puts in at the lab is criminal and I've ranted enough on that subject. Do I really need to be sexually dominant? Probably not but it looks like fun and I am getting an increasing feeling that she enjoys it too, though not to the extent that Angela does.

What does this have to do with politics? Not much, I think. Medical microbiology is a predominently female field and the number of MD's who happen to be women is increasing exponentially. Is this why HMO's think that they can get away with murder? Possibly, possibly . . . Hospital administrators are still mostly men.

Will the time come when society really treats men and women the same? I hope to Hell not! Will the time come when society treats men and women with equal justice and respect? That is a goal we should all be able to agree on.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If "equal justice and equal respect" doesn't mean "treating men and women the same" what does it mean?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

If "equal justice and equal respect" doesn't mean "treating men and women the same" what does it mean?

For one thing it means that I won't punch a woman's lights out when she says something that a man deserves to lose teeth for. I won't take it lying down, but I won't go postal on her. There are many other less dramatic examples. I don't treat all the kids the same because they all have different needs. What one gets a full-blown dressing down for another only needs a stern look. Some need quiet praise because a standing ovation is embarrassing. Others don't even notice approval if doesn't come with a 19-gun salute.

Treating men and women the same means, to me at least, pushing everyone's head into the same shaped hole. I repeat, I hope to Hell not! Treating everyone with equal justice and equal respect means treating everyone like the individuals that they are.