Feminism VS Masochism

So, we were talking about Simone De Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre in philosophy class, and we got into a discussion about their influence on feminism. I mentioned that I believe it can be argued that some women want to be subjugated. That didn't go over too well.
I have taken a fairly dominant role in my relationship with my roomate. I spank her and fuck her and make her scrub the kitchen floor. God knows she needs the discipline, she is a complete brat. This woman named Amanda I totally fell in love with told me I was too nice for her, that she liked men who were jerks. I think she may have been alluding to the fact that she likes men to dominate her, or at least to be mean to her. So, does feminism even aknowledge that this exists? There are women out there who believe that their role in life is a subservient one, and they live their lives that way, but every time I bring this up, some woman of the feminist persuasion feels as though I am the antichrist and she must slay me. WTF?
I guess my question is, does feminism recognize that some people are dominant and some people are submissive, or is the whole movement as militant as the few I have dealt with, and they all ignore the shades of grey? It's really starting to feel like the male/female equality I was trained to believe in was complete bullshit from the beginning, and what women really want is for me to be an asshole. Assholes are sexy somehow.
Someone just the other day told me that the question of why nice guys can't get laid is one of the most asked on the boards. So, what does that mean? That means that men who treat women badly are the ones getting pussy. If that is true, then does feminism have a leg to stand on? Does anyone else see that contradiction? Nice guys treat women well. They treat women as equals which is the whole purpose of the feminist movement, right? But women ignore nice guys and fuck men who are abusive assholes. Thus, feminism is pointless because it goes against the natural flow of male-female relations. Does that make sense? Anyways, I am off on a tangent now, methinks.
Morgan, I especially would love to hear your take on this one, since you are the most outspoken person I know on this site. You give me more shit than anyone, and while I hate you for it sometimes, I also respect you.

I think you're making several logical mistakes. First - you assume that a single feminist movement exists, and that all notions of 'feminism' fall within a single conceptual framework. While that might make life easier for purposes of argumentation, in reality, the modern notion of 'feminism' encompasses a broad spectrum of beliefs, some of which would probably fall within your definition of 'militant,' many of which would not.

Second, you're using faulty inductive logic by assuming that since you know several women who you perceive to want to be dominated, that all women have this aspect to some degree or another. Clearly some women prefer men (or other women) with stronger, more aggressive personalities, and some don't.

Finally, you brought up the fallacy that 'only assholes get laid.' While I'm clearly an asshole on some subjects, with women I'm always the nice guy. And I've never had a problem getting laid. There are plenty of other nice guys like me who are in the same situation. Guys who act like assholes have lots of sex with women who like guys who act like assholes. That doesn't mean that other people aren't getting it on too.

To get at the crux of your question - whether the desire for someone else to take control is in violation with the notion of female empowerment - again, here's a wimpy, non-specific answer. It depends on who you ask. A second wave feminist would probably think that she's a product of a misogynistic society that degrades women, and has thus developed a personality to reflect that second-class status. A third-wave feminist would probably say that's just exercising her right to express whatever preference she wants - and if she decides at some point to change her mind and not look for an aggressive guy, she should be free to do that too.

I have heard this before in a different thread, so let me get this out of the way. I don't want to sleep with you. I have never met a suicide girl, I never expect to meet a suicide girl, and I never in a million years expect to sleep with one. You are nice to look at and all, but you don't exist inside my real world of Wichita Kansas and Butler County Community College.
What I want from you is insight, an opinion, some intellectual stimulation. If I were trying to woo a woman, I would not tell her what a nice guy I am. That much would be obvious by my actions. I would not discuss when the last time I got laid was, that's none of her business. I would more likely discuss A Perfect Circle's new album or how the pink streaks in her hair really go nicely with her shirt, or how her smile lights up her face.

wow, i so didn't get that nixon was fishing for a date. did i miss something?

anyway, to add to the sensible well-thought insight nixon gave and violencejack apparently missed, my sources regarding the dom/sub dynamic tell me that, contrary to a surface appearance of this sort of power play, it is actually the sub who is in charge of what goes down. therefore, it would make sense that a feminist would enjoy the role of sub. she'd be the one in control.

hopefully one of the wise members of the sg bdsm group will clarify this, or correct me if i'm wrong?

edit to clarify: by "in charge" i mean that it's the sub's actions/responses that determine the direction of the play.

[Edited on Dec 05, 2003 by Lamia]

Yes. You did. The point of my comment was that I can whine about shit on this board because I would never expect to meet anyone on this board. You people are, in essence, not real. I would never whine to a real girl about how nice I am and how I cannot get laid, that would be stupid. Thus, Nixon's comment about whining being not sexy is irrelevant. I don't give a fuck if she finds me sexy or not, since she is not a real girl living anywhere near me that I stand a chance of actually interacting with.
To clarify further, I don't treat people on this board the same way I would treat actual people. I can say things here that would never go over face to face. Nixon assumes that because I whine here, I whine in real life. This is not so. This web page falls into a different category of interaction than a person to person meeting would, and thus has its own separate rules.
For comparison, think of cybersex. People have cybersex with random strangers. Most people would never have sex with random strangers in real life.

Okay, from a feminist switch's perspective I can give my opinions. They do not represent any group ever. Not BDSMers queers or women at large. Disclaimer finished.

Wanting rights, equality, respect, and opportunities are all parts of feminism. Also not wanting to be judged by men at large for our sexual decisions could be part of feminism. Hearing various friends and aquaintances complain about how "Women" only sleep with assholes is a huge turn off and makes me suspect that deep down the person saying might be an asshole in his own way. Being nice doesn't mean you "deserve" to get laid.

But to address the idea that some women do find "assholes" (subsitute arrogant, jackass or a few other choice insults) A lot of guys interpret confidence in another male as being cocky rude or a sure sign of a Jackass. Many women, especially women with an interest submission find that to be a real turn on.

As for myself I just like genius.

Yes, but what concerns me more is the idea that the fundamental principles of feminism, that women want respect and equality, might be wrong. Perhaps by teaching men to be respectful to women, you are teaching them not to be aggressive, forceful, cocky, whatever it is women find sexy in especially masculine men like Russel Crow, or that guy who played Wolverine in the X-Men movies, or Sean Connery. The very idea that aggressive men are sexy implies that women should be passive. Granted, I would be all for both sexes being equally aggressive, but I don't think that is realistic.

Wow. Can I call you Prince of Persia? Because that was a leap.

[Edited on Dec 06, 2003 by Jeff_Fries]

Bwa ha ha! good one!

ViolenceJack I'm kind of amazed that you are even trying to seriously discuss philosophy or complex ideas since you can't even get your head around some elementary ideas.

For example you say:

You seem to think that "some women" equals "women in general", and you totally ignore that equally "some men" want to be subjugated also. You ignore the massive amount of analysis into domestic abuse and the psychological effects this has on people from a very young age.

You also conflate several different issues, mixing together someone's "free choice" or "preference" about what kind of relationship they like and what they find attractive in a sexual context, alongside issues to do with abuse, bullying, dominating and exploitative behaviour.

You then somehow take the quantum leap to:

I really don't see how you've made this random leap in your "thinking", but you certainly haven't explained it.

Finally, you come across as an unpleasant sort of person, although I have no way of knowing this, and maybe you are just pretending to be a self-centered idiot for effect and to get attention on this board.

I don't really know where to start discussing things with you since you don't seem to have much of a clue in the first place, although I suppose it is an interesting question to ask if people always act in their own best interests? For example if someone is so abused and bullied and has become psychologically addicted almost to being beaten up by their abusive partner, and won't leave them. Are they really freely choosing to be beaten up?

But whatever the answer to an extreme case like this, it doesn't generalise to all men or all women, and it doesn't mean that people don't have equal rights to be respected.

I am fully aware that I am overgeneralizing. The ideas still bear merit.

much of what you say here flies in the face of what sg is all about, in my humble opinion, but unfortunately i am not kick-ass enough to take you on about it. i hope someone will, because your contentions that nixon is not real and "people on this board" are not real might be laughable if they weren't so creepy. i've read these boards for a long time but have only recently gotten up the nerve to interact with others on them, and i cannot see how it is possible to regard anybody here as anything but 100 percent real, and deserving of the same respect as your friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

But you have mixed up so many ideas together. For example the concept of "equality" is central to almost all systems of morality and political philosophy, in the "legal" sense of the word. But on the other hand that whole discussion is miles away from a discussion of what constitutes a "man" or "woman", if there is such a thing as a "typical man" or "typical woman" and if there is, what impact doies this have on any one individual "man" or "woman".

In my opinion "Feminism" is an outdated word since all the issues apply to men women and (n)either/(n)or people. I'd liek to just quote something I wrote in another forum which kind of sums up my feelings:

I don't even like the term "feminism" since it is in itself a victim of gender role stereotyping.

In my view people should have the freedom to live their life how they want to without being labelled simply by their genitalia. They should be able to define their own identity - to decide for themselves "what" they want to be and how they want to live and interact with society and lead their life. Legally they should be afforded equal rights and protections whatever or whoever they are.

A theory like this needs to be able to account for "men" and "women" who may not want to live according to the standard "roles" and "rules" that society has tradionally set down for the groups its calls "men" and "women".

There are many ways in which people may not want to (or be able to) conform - ranging from people with unconventional sexuality (gay, lesbian, bisexual etc), people who are just "butch" or "effeminate", people who actually have medical/biological fetaures that make their gender/sex less than "definite", people who like to cross-dress, people who want to pursue "non-tradional" roles - eg women who want to do boxing or pole-vault or join the military, or men who want to be "house-husbands", nurses or primary-school teachers. There is also the whole question of what things really do define or make us "male" or "female" - both physically - and more importantly - psychologically.

I wouldn't say that much of this, let alone a satisfactory "theory" can simply be summed up as "feminism" - it needs a much more robust and less reactionary theory if it is going to be both fair and persuasive.

Well, obviously ViolenceJack is not trying to make friends here. And he makes some rather... surprising leaps of logic.

But I can't help but think that there's a serious question in there, if only it were articulated a little better.

How's this: if a woman finds that she is mainly attracted to men who are misogynistic, would it be better for her to act on her desire, given that it seems authentic to her, and it's what she wants? Or would this be an expression of a "false consciousness", which she ought to endeavour to outgrow?

Note that I'm not making any stupid generalisations along the lines of "all women belong in the kitchen because I can't get laid". I think this is a valid hypothetical question.

Why dont women need to wear a watch?
Cause theres a clock on the stove.
harharhar

Feminism vs masochism?
Ill put 5 bucks on masochism, that is untill Hillary wins president in 2008.

ViolenceJack said:

Yes, but what concerns me more is the idea that the fundamental principles of feminism, that women want respect and equality, might be wrong.

Uh, no.

Just plain no.

The concept that some women desire to be submissive either sexually or lifestyle-wise or both doesn't contradict the concept that women (and men) want and deserve respect and equality.

Because by entering into a consentual relationship that involves a negotiated and mutual state of submissiveness is an act of respect and equality, while being forced into one is not. I've had very submissive (and very dominant) female partners and I never once assumed they didn't want to be respected and treated as an equal.

Perhaps by teaching men to be respectful to women, you are teaching them not to be aggressive, forceful, cocky, whatever it is women find sexy in especially masculine men like Russel Crow, or that guy who played Wolverine in the X-Men movies, or Sean Connery. The very idea that aggressive men are sexy implies that women should be passive. Granted, I would be all for both sexes being equally aggressive, but I don't think that is realistic.

So did I miss where being aggressive, forceful, cocky or whatever other way you want to say "typically masculine" negates being respectful to women? Ever heard of chivalry, for starters? There's a huge gap between being masculine and being an asshole. You can be masculine without disrepecting women, and you can treat women like shit and not be macho in the slightest.

Perhaps by teaching men to be respectful to women, you are teaching them not to be aggressive, forceful, cocky, whatever it is women find sexy in especially masculine men like Russel Crow, or that guy who played Wolverine in the X-Men movies, or Sean Connery. The very idea that aggressive men are sexy implies that women should be passive.

That masculine guy who played Wolverine is now on Broadway in what some consider an incredibly "unmasculine" role. Yet the wimmens still like him... Go figure.

And how about all the women who say that they wish their gay male friends weren't gay, because they'd make an ideal mate. I think that comes out of the mutual respect they share, treating each other as equals without a dominant/submissive role. So if a typically "masculine" male were to treat his girlfriend as an equal, she'd probably like him much more than the one who treats her like a slab of beef. Again... go figure.

Yes Wolverine is hot, but his broadway production is keeping Xmen 3 from being filmed. Jackman we love ya buddy, but slow down on the Broadway and the chick flicks, got no problem with ya doin em gotta earn a living and with Broadway you prove you have some talent, but dont let them interfere with what got your career started.

I had been waiting on the Xmen movies for about 14 years or so and I gotta know how the Pheonix is going to work into the story....

Damn Im a fucking geek and I need a life.

thrasymedes said:
Well, obviously ViolenceJack is not trying to make friends here. And he makes some rather... surprising leaps of logic.

He's taking a leap of something, but it sure as hell isn't logic!

The point of my comment was that I can whine about shit on this board because I would never expect to meet anyone on this board. You people are, in essence, not real"

Wow, man. Deeeeeeep.


I totally support this becoming an X2 discussion thread, it would be a much more valuable investment of our time and energy.

Nightcrawler R00LS!


[Edited on Dec 06, 2003 by SaintAshlar]

I did the same thing lol, and had to explain it to the people I was with.
How bad ass is she gonna be in this 3rd one?

There now this thread has officially become an Xmen thread.

[Edited on Dec 06, 2003 by ericcoda]