Theoretical Feminism

[WritingCouple94]

So, let's jump right in.

I believe in feminism. I insist on the rights of women as equals with men in all ways.

As a practical matter, and as a matter of preference, when I'm alone with my husband, I put my feminism on a shelf. It's something I want to know that I have, but I don't want to actually live it.

It is an enormous turn-on to have a husband who is five inches taller than I am, eighty pounds heavier, and strong enough that he can impose his will on me. I like him telling me what to do. I like the burn in my blood when he acts as if he can order me around and expect me to obey him, and I like him not taking 'no' for an answer.

There is a difference between having a right versus actually using it. I'm almost never on top (unless I'm giving oral). I rarely say "no", and when I do, I know he's going to grab hold of me and do it anyway - and in a matter of seconds I'm yelling "Damn You!" as I'm enjoying the thrill of being forced into something that I didn't want but enjoy the hell out of.

(I'm writing this sentence with him looking over my shoulder. His hands are on me as he is reading the post above. I'm about to get laid. I'm going to resist just enough to get him to hold me down).

Yes, this is pretty obvious run-of-the-mill cliched drivel, but it's what I like. The challenge will be to give it more detail and story texture as we try to write stories.

 

[LadyVer]

ok, but why does feminism have to part of the equation? And I'm not being snarky, and I'm a feminist. The thing is, a lot of people, including myself, are fed up to here with people pontificating on feminism and how it relates to every damn thing in the universe. I mean no offense. Most men who read erotica are looking to get off, not hear about feminism. I would guess a good many are sick and tired of hearing about it. They're probably trying to get away from it. Now, if you want to write an essay about feminism under the Non-Erotica category, that may be an option. My two cents, and again, I mean no offense. And in the end, you can write whatever you want. (Just don't post it in the LW category. Well, unless you're bored, I guess.)

Good luck!

 

[WritingCouple94]

ok, but why does feminism have to part of the equation? ...

Because it's a source of conflict for me, both inside my own head and between me and my husband (with him wanting me to be more of an equal partner and less of a "looking up at him adoringly" wife).

It's a source of energy for why I'm writing.

 

[WritingCouple94]

And no offense taken

 

[LadyVer]

Because it's a source of conflict for me, both inside my own head and between me and my husband (with him wanting me to be more of an equal partner and less of a "looking up at him adoringly" wife).

It's a source of energy for why I'm writing.

Good points. Do you have categories in mind for your stories?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Because it's a source of conflict for me, both inside my own head and between me and my husband (with him wanting me to be more of an equal partner and less of a "looking up at him adoringly" wife).

It's a source of energy for why I'm writing.

I like those conflicts in stories: people who have an egalitarian discussion about consent before launching into very non-egalitarian D&S, etc etc.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Feminism goes to hell whenever the better half hands me a water bottle to un-cap for her.

 

[Sammael Bard]

Feminism goes to hell whenever the better half hands me a water bottle to un-cap for her.

Your Wife thrashed you again?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Your Wife thrashed you again?

Only in your dreams, girly man.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I love how women want to be 'equal' with men...

I have been in business for more than thirty years, and you mostly encounter men. I certainly do not think it's a good idea to be 'equal' with them or to them for that matter.

I remember when my mother was sort of feminist before it was fashionable and even she laughed at the idea of equality; she certainly believed women were generally a lot smarter than men.

There are two kinds of people in the world: the better, smarter, more intelligent, nicer, kinder, type - and all the rest, who are rubbish, both men and women.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I love how women want to be 'equal' with men...

I have been in business for more than thirty years, and you mostly encounter men. I certainly do not think it's a good idea to be 'equal' with them or to them for that matter.

I remember when my mother was sort of feminist before it was fashionable and even she laughed at the idea of equality; she certainly believed women were generally a lot smarter than men.

There are two kinds of people in the world: the better, smarter, more intelligent, nicer, kinder, type - and all the rest, who are rubbish, both men and women.

My better half and I had this discussion at breakfast. She mentioned a girl she knows who wants to be a guy. I replied: STUPID ISNT ALL ITS CRACKED UP TO BE, SHE'LL MISS HER MIND MORE THAN GAINING A DICK.

 

[PennLady]

Because it's a source of conflict for me, both inside my own head and between me and my husband (with him wanting me to be more of an equal partner and less of a "looking up at him adoringly" wife).

It's a source of energy for why I'm writing.

If feminism is -- as so many say -- about the right to make choices, and you like this interaction with your husband and so choose to continue it, then there's nothing anti-feminist about it, particularly. Preferring something is different than going along with it just because it's always been that way, or everyone thinks you should, or whatever.

Sitting in my psych armchair I'd say that perhaps you enjoy it because it seems your husband desires you so much that he acts this way. And let's be honest, this is a common desire/fantasy for probably a lot of women, and there's nothing wrong with it. If your husband was forcing you to do something you don't want to do, then that's another problem, but that doesn't quite sound like the issue here.

No one has to be all one way all the time. You can lead at some times, follow at others, demand at times and request or submit at others.

Sounds like you and your husband maybe need to hash this out though. Perhaps he doesn't *want* to be the dominant one all the time. That can get tiring and/or boring. Maybe you can switch up sometimes, or maybe he just wants things on a more equal footing.

 

[PennLady]

I love how women want to be 'equal' with men...

I have been in business for more than thirty years, and you mostly encounter men. I certainly do not think it's a good idea to be 'equal' with them or to them for that matter.

But you must realize that what we're talking about here is equal opportunity and treatment. It's about being paid the same wage for the same job, and not being punished career-wise when you have to make a choice and do something for your kids and family. Or being seen in a poor/different light if in fact you are a single female past a certain age. Or when assertive behavior is rewarded in men but punished in women.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The whole time I worked in mental health and for the state the gals were first in line for the gimmees and no where to be found when a violent animal needed restraints or needed a home visit out in the jungle. So fuck the gals and their trials.

Feminism walks out the back door when a Neanderthal walks in the front door.

 

[desertslave]

But you must realize that what we're talking about here is equal opportunity and treatment. It's about being paid the same wage for the same job, and not being punished career-wise when you have to make a choice and do something for your kids and family. Or being seen in a poor/different light if in fact you are a single female past a certain age. Or when assertive behavior is rewarded in men but punished in women.

This!

I completely relate to the idea of 'theoretical' feminism. I'd really prefer to be pegged as humanist, but history has given it a different connotation. Maybe I could be 'genderist?' Anyway, I think that all people, regardless of gender, should be able to choose their employment (assuming ability), choose their lifestyle, choose who they love and choose their behaviors without being tagged with a gendered label and without liability. Work should be paid according to skill and effort.

I'm submissive by nature and I express it by choice, quietly in our home. I also encourage my daughter to assert herself when needed, to become exactly who she wants to be, and to live the life of her choice. (Same for my son, actually.)

 

[Handley_Page]

I love how women want to be 'equal' with men...

I have been in business for more than thirty years, and you mostly encounter men. I certainly do not think it's a good idea to be 'equal' with them or to them for that matter.

I remember when my mother was sort of feminist before it was fashionable and even she laughed at the idea of equality; she certainly believed women were generally a lot smarter than men.

My late wife had a sign in the kitchen: "Women who seek equality lack ambition"

But the message has still not circulated properly: I was raised in the time when being polite to a woman was the done thing. Often my parents would remonstrate with me about forgetting to say "Ma'am" to a lady older than me, or leaving a door open so the lady could enter, and all that.

But a great many so-called 'feminists' have, it seems to me, to have muddied the waters a trifle too much. There's a fabulous poster illustrating this dichotomy (?) rather well, which portrays the face of an angry female. The text reads:-

"You're supposed to pull out a chair for me, hold the door open and be nice, no matter what:
While treating me as an Equal."​

Which is patently impossible.
Manners are rapidly vanishing, especially among the young modern woman. As I was going into an office not so long ago, this female rushed in front and let the door close in my face (it's a good job I was otherwise occupied and so on. I was tempted to bawl her out for her rudeness.)
[Ever had one of those times when you think of a suitable action AFTER the event ?]

Ye gods, their daughters have yet to be taught about lady-like behaviour and politeness.
Feminism my backside !

PS. Give me a moment to put my armour on and my bullet-proof vest, please.

In-coming !​

 

[sr71plt]

But you must realize that what we're talking about here is equal opportunity and treatment. It's about being paid the same wage for the same job, and not being punished career-wise when you have to make a choice and do something for your kids and family. Or being seen in a poor/different light if in fact you are a single female past a certain age. Or when assertive behavior is rewarded in men but punished in women.

This is the disconnect that I see in the feminist view of the workplace. They don't take into account the "equal opportunity and treatment" perspective from the employer's point of view--what the employer has to invest in the employee to get that equal value from the employee's contribution. Think about that for a while. Don't just knee-jerk respond (because I really don't intend to spend my day rediscovering this wheel--just as someone who worked heavily in this field in the late 60s and early 70s, I've never found feminists willing to actually be talking about equality--they have always been talking about overbalancing--by a lot--in the direction of their own "take from").

The workplace inequality issue between genders needs to be worked out in society's and individual's view of equality in the family/home.

 

[RoyceConnors]

And this issue will always present a problem as long as we see ourselves as men and women and not people. Until women are afforded the same understanding that men give each other and vice versa, there will always be a conflict.

Religion is still a major player in keeping women down and has since they abolished the Sacred Feminine to promote men as superior beings and the male God we all call our father in heaven. Men are always put first above women and every married couple is structured automatically this way, no matter which religion. Mr. & Mrs. a prime example. Try promoting Mistress and mister officially.

Feminism is something taken differently by every woman who approaches it. Each circumstance is different and causes each to feel a certain level of inequality towards men in general. What factors are present also play a part in how women feel affected, like being in the game alongside men, or playing the underling to them.

 

[PennLady]

This is the disconnect that I see in the feminist view of the workplace. They don't take into account the "equal opportunity and treatment" perspective from the employer's point of view--what the employer has to invest in the employee to get that equal value from the employee's contribution. Think about that for a while. Don't just knee-jerk respond (because I really don't intend to spend my day rediscovering this wheel--just as someone who worked heavily in this field in the late 60s and early 70s, I've never found feminists willing to actually be talking about equality--they have always been talking about overbalancing--by a lot--in the direction of their own "take from").

The workplace inequality issue between genders needs to be worked out in society's and individual's view of equality in the family/home.

I wouldn't give this a knee-jerk response because I couldn't. I've considered it a lot over the years.

But I think Royce has the idea. I know businesses are in business to do business, and usually make money. I have said this many times in relation to different topics. It doesn't mean it's right, but it is how things generally work.

I just think there are lots of contradictions, or at least things that work against each other. A common complaint is parents don't parent their kids, or do it well enough; how can they when work demands they devote so much time, yet don't (always) support child care or pay enough for people to afford it?

It takes a village, but most of the village is too busy working to help out. Especially now, when companies have decided they can get along with fewer people doing the same job as more people, and not paying them any more for it.

Companies will go on about being family and doing right by their employees, but they don't live it. If it were true, people who needed to devote time to family would get it, and people who don't have kids (let's say) would receive some other kind of compensation, or the same kind of compensation when they need to attend to themselves or perhaps a parent who needs care. Take care of yourself when you're sick, they say, but when people try to do that by staying home to get better and not infect their co-workers, that support isn't there. People are respected for "working through it," after having been told basically they don't need to work through it.

I don't think people should short-change their employers, at all. But I often wonder, when I see stories of poor treatment of employees, why do we as human beings do these things to other human beings? Why do we make it so difficult in so many ways to raise families, yet go on about the importance of families?

It's not easy, at all, and nothing will really change until there's a sea change in the way society thinks about these issues, which are all related.

 

[Bramblethorn]

There's a fabulous poster illustrating this dichotomy (?) rather well, which portrays the face of an angry female. The text reads:-

"You're supposed to pull out a chair for me, hold the door open and be nice, no matter what:
While treating me as an Equal."​

Which is patently impossible.

But is it impossible? When I remember, I hold the door and try to be nice for everyone, regardless of gender. (I pretty much never remember the chair thing, alas.)

Courtesy, in itself, is a great thing. Problem is that sometimes "courtesy" to women is a Trojan horse for something less pleasant, be that "men are expected to take care of you, so you don't need a career" or "I've been nice to you all night, now you owe me sex".

 

[Bramblethorn]

But I think Royce has the idea. I know businesses are in business to do business, and usually make money. I have said this many times in relation to different topics. It doesn't mean it's right, but it is how things generally work.

This is true, but there's an important caveat: people often fall into the trap of assuming that because businesses are there to make money, what they're currently doing must be the best way to make money. IRL businesses are run by people, with the same irrationalities and blind spots and resistance to change as anybody else, and they often overestimate the obstacles/underestimate the benefits of changing culture.

Often it comes down to "diversity wouldn't work for us because we have this inflexible way of doing things that we got away with for 30 years because we only* hired able-bodied cisgender straight white guys"*. When they do bite the bullet and change that corporate culture, they discover that the other way of doing things has benefits they hadn't expected.

e.g.: back in the mists of time, my employer was one of those 9-5 M-F all-male-except-the-typists workplaces. When the equal opportunity legislation came in, I understand there was a fair bit of grumbling about having to employ women who might go off to have babies etc etc.

But they adapted by bringing in things like part-time and flexible working hours... and these days, a lot of men use those arrangements too. The nature of our work is that a lot of projects don't need a full-time manager. If my boss decides he'd rather work a three-day week and spend the other two days looking after his kids, then everybody wins: my work saves 40% of a manager's salary, my boss gets a better work-life balance, and I can get on with my job without being over-managed.

Obviously having a diverse employee base provides a range of knowledge and perspectives, but there's some interesting research showing that it also has benefits for decision-making just by how it changes the dynamics of group discussion. Homogenous groups tend to affirm one another and suffer from group-think; mixed groups make better decisions.

http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/better_decisions_through_diversity

*as far as they knew

 

[JLCC]

Per the OP, feminism has resulted in an environment antithetical to what she craves from her man.

The only reason that her man can get away with what he does is because she allows it. If she didn't, what he does would be tantamount to rape and the full weight of the law could be brought down on him at her whim.

Certainly, pure feminism, which doesn't practically exist, would allow for her choice in this, but it still totally negates his choice. It's a sexist doctrine.

 

[PennLady]

This is true, but there's an important caveat: people often fall into the trap of assuming that because businesses are there to make money, what they're currently doing must be the best way to make money. IRL businesses are run by people, with the same irrationalities and blind spots and resistance to change as anybody else, and they often overestimate the obstacles/underestimate the benefits of changing culture.

Oh no question. I always felt so fortunate in my former full-time job. It was a news organization and so by nature couldn't hold to the usual 9-5 day. However, it was extremely flexible, and I think it was because that's what worked. There was an official vacation time plan, for example, but it wasn't particularly enforced. People took off when they wanted/needed to, provided their work was covered and their coworkers were aware of it.

People would also step up to pitch in like that, in part because of reciprocation.

When I had my first child, I received, per company policy for the first child, a gift of four weeks of paid leave (!!!). This was in addition to the unpaid FMLA leave, and was greatly appreciated. This is the kind of thing that generates not just gratitude, but loyalty. They worked with you when you needed or wanted to work from home (and of course that was much easier once cable modems, etc., came into play).

People and corporations are slow to change, no doubt about it. But there does need to be change somewhere along the line.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh no question. I always felt so fortunate in my former full-time job. It was a news organization and so by nature couldn't hold to the usual 9-5 day. However, it was extremely flexible, and I think it was because that's what worked. There was an official vacation time plan, for example, but it wasn't particularly enforced. People took off when they wanted/needed to, provided their work was covered and their coworkers were aware of it.

People would also step up to pitch in like that, in part because of reciprocation.

When I had my first child, I received, per company policy for the first child, a gift of four weeks of paid leave (!!!). This was in addition to the unpaid FMLA leave, and was greatly appreciated. This is the kind of thing that generates not just gratitude, but loyalty. They worked with you when you needed or wanted to work from home (and of course that was much easier once cable modems, etc., came into play).

People and corporations are slow to change, no doubt about it. But there does need to be change somewhere along the line.

Then what you were receiving wasn't equal opportunity or equality; it was favoritism. I think that's needed in the workplace, but I don't agree that it's a striving for equal opportunity or equality--it's a striving for favoritism to accommodate the difference in demands society places on the separate genders and family situations and to balance the greater needs of society.

A single employee without children (who, in the employer's perspective is the more "at work" of the two) isn't going to get maternity leave (so isn't on an equal basis to that of an employee who will get it), but when that employee is old and in a rest home, he/she will receive the benefit of people who raised the next generation. This is not in any way what feminists are talking about when they are talking equal opportunity, though--they actually are grasping for favoritism to accommodate their individual circumstance that has little or nothing to do with the employer's workforce cost/availability. They are choosing to see this as bringing the status of a woman up to that of other employees when, in fact, they want to overshoot the status of the other employees in benefit and accommodation. There are reasons to do this--obtaining equal opportunity isn't one of those reasons.

 

[PennLady]

Then what you were receiving wasn't equal opportunity or equality; it was favoritism. I think that's needed in the workplace, but I don't agree that it's a striving for equal opportunity or equality--it's a striving for favoritism to accommodate the difference in demands society places on the separate genders and family situations and to balance the greater needs of society.

You're right to an extent, at least. I assume they would also give this to a male employee whose wife was having their first child. If there was a comparable benefit for non-parents, I don't know of it.

I don't think there will ever be a direct "equal" in situations, which people seem to be looking for. I think there needs to be accommodation, mostly on a case-by-case basis, so that if there is something like my company's leave policy for a first child, then a non-parent have something as well.

I think the thing is we need more people, because those people grow up and then as you note, support the generation(s) before them in many capacities.