I officially give the fuck up.

After a lengthy debate about generalizations about women, two women on another site chimed into the conversation to add that they like their men to 'control' them.

And now, I weep...

I notice that more lately, people of certain groups embrace belief systems or points of view that oppress them. I don't get it.

Maybe it's just their thing.

They're playing that "dom" game. That's their thing. They're trying to lure a guy into thinking they're submissives.

Just tell them you're a guy, you're their Master, and you want them to detail your car. Or clean the bathrooms.

That always works for me. They shut up real fast.

They obviously are not real women.

:-) Honest to God.

Since when? :shrug:

Just make sure you're back in time to cook dinner.

*ducks*

;-):hide:

:loveya:

You don't have to convince everyone.

My wife and I are committed to having an equal partnership. I look at it this way: if a person wishes to be subservient to another, that is their prerogative. I have no say in the matter.

I have no say in the matter. :hide:

I'M JOKING HERE

We're on the verge of losing Choice, here, BtBM!

:(

But if a PERSON'S wish is to be subservient to their lifemate, while I may not agree with it, is ultimately their wish. (person in caps for emphasis; I'm trying not to make it a man/woman issue).

We obviously need all the help we can get to make sure that women actually have a choice on such matters well into the future.

--Peter

really don't know more than two guys that want to give it, and they don't have many friends. So while ~that guy~ exists, we're not all Falwells bastards.

Fuck them. Yes, I said it: Fuck Them. I too have been fighting the feminist fight for decades; if these idiots want to be treated like shit, then let them. And don't hold the door open at the feminist club when their men are dead and they finally have to figure out how to operate the checkbook.

(Angry? Yes, a tad...)

Sometimes I want to scream when I hear otherwise smart and bright women on campus say "You know, maybe I'll just be a housewife and forget about my degree." :cry:
Fuck it. You want to be a mere object? Go for it.
The problem is...for those of us who want to be fierce, prideful women with CAREERS, we look like odd beasts ;(

A) Children grow up and yet somehow, your life doesn't end. You've got the kids out of the house when you're 40, what are you gonna do for the *next* 40 years?

B) Children do better with an educated parent. Intelligence is good, but education is better.

But then again, these are women who just...don't...care.
I will not marry or have children until I am financially secure and in a stable environment.

Because that's what feminism is about, being able to choose what you want, when you want. The biggest mistake made in feminism was not valuing mothering. If we'd valued mothering, we wouldn't have all these women earning less because of the time spent away from work... mothering. Until women value mothering as much as they value a career, mothering will never be respected and neither will male parenting. Meaning women will be stuck in poverty because of it, for fucking ever.

I am not bashing parenting. I am not bashing homemaking. I am bashing the women who think they are going to be happy at age 50 with only half a degree and an empty nest that needs dusting (and gawd knows he ain't gonna do it).

I've worked and not worked, depending on varying circumstances, not all of which were money related. My kids are grown and my life is wide open, although I'm currently content with my political project and income generating project. I'm thinking of writing a historical novel.

And HE not only dusts, he cooks, does dishes, vacuums, does laundry, and every other thing that needs doing. I guess he figures I've put in my 20, I don't know, I just accept it.

It's about having the independence to make choices that are right for the woman. That's it, that's all.

and I'm not bashing you. Again, what I said earlier was that the woman who has no life outside the home and lets her husband do everything is going to be in a sorry state of affairs once he dies, or once she gets fed up with cleaning the same 5 rooms for 10+ years. And if she then comes crying to us feminists for help, I have a hard time putting aside my "I told you so"'s before I help her.

Just maybe, you are confusing independent women who truly make the choice to stay home and actually have control of all the finances, with these "want men to be in control" women that redqueen is talking about. I'm saying that not all women who have stayed home are in that category. In fact, I've never known ANY women who let their husband's control them. Well, abused spouses but I don't think we're talking about that sad situation. So maybe your life situation has put you in the position to be in contact with a particular type of stay-at-home woman, where mine has put me in the position to be in contact with the exact opposite. Could that be it?

But really, my main point is that valuing mothering would lead to a social structure that could end the subservient aspect of it altogether. A society that valued mothering wouldn't have destitute women after the men died because her work would have been rewarded financially all along. And valuing nurturing work would lead to an increase in pay in nurturing fields as well. Nurse's aides is the second highest injury field, yet the pay doesn't reflect that like construction, for instance.

I know who I mean. *Again*, I am talking about the woman who lets herself be handled by outside forces because she sees life as too hard for her to control. I am *not* talking about every stay-at-home mother.

I've never known the type of woman who lets herself be handled by outside forces, so I guess I just can't relate. But I am glad you do see that this is not the case with every stay at home mom.

Still, valuing mothering would be beneficial for all moms, and dads, and society as a whole.

Both by choice and by generational habit. And just for full disclosure - I am a mother of the cutest 2 year old you could ever want to know. Trust me, I value mothering.

You'll value it even more after you've been at it for 20 years.

The presumption that women who, by choice, stay home with their children are somehow less then women who work outside the home is silly. Both work. Just in different locations.

I'm lucky enough (My husband is an attorney and I'm his secretary) that I'm considered a Homemaker (at least that's what people keep calling me) even though I spend more that 40 hours a week in an office building.

I am able to be at school or not at work when our son needs us. Yet I am working outside of the home.

I'm not disparaging those who wish to be SAHMs... far from it.

My problem is with women propogating the idea that women, deep down, really want 'the man to be in control.'

That feeds the anti-choice movement far too effectively, IMO.

I agree. I honestly didn't know women came that way anymore, until I saw a few on one of those wife shows. (Which I think are degrading, but bizarrely interesting at the same time.)

but I'm undereducated (no college degree) and am still able to instill a good work ethic and the positives of going to college in my child. (In fact I don't even know if he realizes that I don't have a degree, he may just assume that I do have one since his dad and I work together and dad has a degree).

myself - I was hypothesizing a woman who went to and then left college; it was my assumption that half a degree is a frustrating position to be in.

Who can afford to be a housewife? And why would they want to? :eyes:

For the rich folks that go to this school, it certainly can be.

I know people who stay at home with their kids because they can't find paying work. And to be frank, staying at home raising your kids can be fun and exciting. I just don't understand the myopic woman who says that that's all she wants to do in life.

And originally, I was talking about those women who want to do nothing more than be a housewife. Taking care of a home is a lot of work, and it can be very rewarding for the first 5 years or so, but it can't be the only thing in your life. When I hear a young woman saying that she wants to go to school just to get her MRS, that is what kills me. It's that "Oh, life is hard! I'll just hide inside" attitude.

but I do need work and other pursuits in my life. I didn't mean this to come off as harshly as it did.

To be there for my kids... that's the sole reason.

I was, for a while... and I loved it.

too hard. When kids are little, it makes a lot of sense. But I think daycare and school are lifesavers, so that not all your time is in the house. :)

personally, I think part-time is best or a flexible schedule of some sort.

In my case, I have a Ph.D., yet I chose to remain out of practice until my children were in school. I now work at home and am able to be home when my kids are sick, or volunteer when the school needs something.

To assume that people are :eyes: because they are housewives is very misguided. The 'housewife' of today is much, much different than the Donna Reed stereotype. Hell, volunteering at my kids' schools alone could be a full time job.

She was on PTA, various other committees, did charity work and volunteering...it was June Cleaver who never seemed to do anything besides dishes, vacuuming, and consulting Ward. ;)

I was just using her as the 50's stereotypical housewife.

movement.

You learn the most amazing things channel surfing past the Biography Channel.

I was reacting to the idea of someone "only" wanting to be a housewife at that age, just out of college. People need work and to be a parent and to have a creative life as well. It riled up my latent spirits of Freidan/ Steinem.

didn't mean it to sound so harsh.

Or were you referring to women without children who choose to stay home?

I did stay home some, but I always worked at least part-time. The point is to make the choice that makes sense for you. I was just having an old-school feminist reaction to the concept of housewife amd that being the "goal" of college aged women.

Am I a mere object?

doesn't mean anyone else has to. Some people no matter the gender would rather be the sub. There's a number of type A females out there who need subs for husbands. In the health profession I've seen this numerous times.

I'm all about being a sub... IN THE BEDROOM.

Outside, I'm EMINENTLY more capable of making my own decisions, TYVM.

You're no shrinking violet at all. A woman with spunk. Yes!

:yourock:

:evilgrin:

One, in the way that you feel. That they want to be "put in their place" by the male of the species.

Let's face it, that's pretty sad. Oh well.

Then there's another way: A submissive/dominant relationship. That's cool by me. As I understand it, the submissive actually has the say so in this type of interaction. If the submissive wishes to cease then the dom has no recourse but to relent.

That's the only way I would have it.

They were a couple who had problems, but a perfect understanding of one another. It went way beyond anyone's ideas about the sexes. When she was doing her movies and her art, John hung back and helped her; never interfered unless she wanted his opinion. When John did his music, Yoko was present at the recordings, but stayed out of the way of his professional decisions.

Maybe it has something to do with the "Art World", this sort of partnership. You can't tell who was the dominant one.

The two most important things ia a dominant/submissive relationship

;)

sometimes target with whom you get into battle... some really don't want to think, or be challenged at this time, which means they are not receptive. Sad, but true. Plant seeds of thought, and perhaps latter those seeds will grow into independent ideas...

btw ;-)

And now... more weeping!

;)



See y'all tomorrow!

and touch my monkey.

(totally kidding, please don't kill me)

When my little spitfire five-year-old daughter grows up, straight men will wish they'd been born gay after she gets through with them and leaves them by the side of the road! :D

Nice to know someone will take up the mantle after I've retired.

Don't ever forget that. Giving the fuck up will only serve to ensure our extinction.

Have a beer :beer:

You were debating about generalizations and then two specific women said they like to be controlled. They destroyed a generalization.

Seems to me they were actually supporting your argument.

I'm yours.

if a woman "prefers" and "allows" a man to control her, then just who is controlling who?

She is on him like a remote control, and he apparently likes being manipulated.

It's a transaction, it's what I call daytime B&D, where they are playing power politics but everything is a agreed on ahead of time.

When you ask them if they like being controlled by men whom they haven't given *permission* to do so, such as in the case of rape, they get all farklempt.

I have male friends who say they like their women to control them.

that those were ACTUALLY women?

Perhaps it was a female impersonator on the Bush payroll.

:freak:

Actually, would that not be the point of "liberation"? That there is not ONE correct way to be a woman? As another poster asked in the lounge - is it possible to even talk without making some generalization or other?
I think "giving up" a "need to convert people to my POV" is a good thing. What are the boundary lines within which decent people can disagree? Cross a line and a person becomes a label - be it repuke, misogynist, bigot, ignoramus, dupe, sheeple, etc.
Or am I just making a generalization about the way alot of people seem to think?

giving up? i know a few gals like that. they make no decisions at all, everything is up to the guy. it's not ideal, but they do know they're doing it. and they want to have someone else to blame. LOL.

we're so complex

(it's a human thing)

there are areas where she is in complete control and I don't question her decisions--and vice versa for me.

We find it works well for us (in some things) because we have different interests and expertise. So--it works out to be a good partnership.

For example--she is completely in charge of the money (she is better at budgeting than I am). I don't complain or question her decisions.

On the other hand I am in charge of making our social plans--deciding where to go on vacations etc--she hates making those kinds of plans--whereas I love it. So she goes with whatever I decide--no questions asked.

It works out to being a good partnership--but we are NOT equal partners in everything (in my opinion, that is an ideal that is very hard to achieve). It is best for each individual couple to decide these things between themselves--and as long as they are happy--then who else cares?

that is just fucking depressing.

Some women are seriously their own worst enemies (and the worst enemies of the rest of women everywhere)