The Feminist Submissive

[Ch****]

4 hours ago, CopperKnob said:

Dominance/feminism isn't something I've considered so interested in how you think they may not be mutually exclusive

Under the assumption that feminism is seeing females as equal to males...I'll try to explain succinctly.  In a scene, within a relationship, a submissive female may be kneeling, licking my boots, as an example just to illustrate potential submissive behavior. She may have offered a power exchange and in this scenario let's assume I have assumed an imbalance of power. But what hasn't taken place is any negative change in how I SEE her as a person. She's still valuable and equal to me as a person, and will continue to be after the scene is over. Anything said or done in the scene to contradict that is illusory, maybe said as acting or playful. This is related to everything we do as consenting. Even TPE is done from a basic understanding that we both want an imbalance of power. But I don't see power as equality here, even though elements of power would have to be included in feminist considerations. Pay equality is a feminist agenda item, and I can believe that pay equality should be achieved overall, and yet I don't see salary discussion as part of D/s roles in a relationship. (With apologies to those that seek, or are, suited helicopter D's). Maybe a long-winded answer to say that when respect, admiration and the like are present toward a sub at the core of your belief, they can be looked at as an equal for what they bring to the relationship.

[CopperKnob]

1 hour ago, ReynoldsRap2222 said:

Omg your still not getting it the TERM FEMINISM and the idea being pushed was for *** purposes.

No I don’t disagree with woman’s rights
Nor am I opposed to being near the idea of a woman’s influence and femininity, infant ask anyone I have more woman that run my business for me then men for many of reasons .

We’re just not getting it “different forms of feminism” no it’s actually different forms of equality . But feminism isn’t what your thinking it is and that’s my entire point. Your The one’s creating
The label to be diff then gender equality . That’s the problem. Ur not wanting what feminism acfual goals are , your intentions
Are not even close to
The true goals of the Inventor of feminism

I do love a chap who tells us all the ways they support feminism and yet they show us that they don't by their actions

[CopperKnob]

41 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

every thread on feminism needs at least one man to mansplain gender equality  

It would be disappointing if they didn't wouldn't it?

[CopperKnob]

26 minutes ago, ChromeDom said:

Under the assumption that feminism is seeing females as equal to males...I'll try to explain succinctly.  In a scene, within a relationship, a submissive female may be kneeling, licking my boots, as an example just to illustrate potential submissive behavior. She may have offered a power exchange and in this scenario let's assume I have assumed an imbalance of power. But what hasn't taken place is any negative change in how I SEE her as a person. She's still valuable and equal to me as a person, and will continue to be after the scene is over. Anything said or done in the scene to contradict that is illusory, maybe said as acting or playful. This is related to everything we do as consenting. Even TPE is done from a basic understanding that we both want an imbalance of power. But I don't see power as equality here, even though elements of power would have to be included in feminist considerations. Pay equality is a feminist agenda item, and I can believe that pay equality should be achieved overall, and yet I don't see salary discussion as part of D/s roles in a relationship. (With apologies to those that seek, or are, suited helicopter D's). Maybe a long-winded answer to say that when respect, admiration and the like are present toward a sub at the core of your belief, they can be looked at as an equal for what they bring to the relationship.

Thank you. I agree with your comment which I think is, that regardless of which side of the slash, as long as the power exchange remains transactional in any given moment and, that the fundamentals of any relationship are present, feminism is supported (on the basis of the type of feminism you've used)

[Ar****]

On 9/10/2022 at 11:22 PM, ReynoldsRap2222 said:

Omg your still not getting it the TERM FEMINISM and the idea being pushed was for *** purposes.

No I don’t disagree with woman’s rights
Nor am I opposed to being near the idea of a woman’s influence and femininity, infant ask anyone I have more woman that run my business for me then men for many of reasons .

We’re just not getting it “different forms of feminism” no it’s actually different forms of equality . But feminism isn’t what your thinking it is and that’s my entire point. Your The one’s creating
The label to be diff then gender equality . That’s the problem. Ur not wanting what feminism acfual goals are , your intentions
Are not even close to
The true goals of the Inventor of feminism

Well it's absolutely delightful that you advocate equal rights, even if you do go about it by running roughshod over the women who know what they're talking about in this thread far better than you - way to read a room pal 😂

I'm an optimist (naïve, I know) who likes to believe people can learn and grow. I certainly hope that's the case with me. As such I am happy to throw a few sources out into the thread which will hopefully establish that YES feminism IS what we think it is, and that whilst nobody is disputing that what you describe went on it is - if I may borrow your colourful descriptor - "bullshit" to present these anecdotes as the be all and end all of feminism. Because it really isn't. It's just one spoke of a wheel representing one aspect in a whole machine that has just one simple belief at it's core.

When there is dispute over what a word is/means, the dictionary is - believe it or not - a splendid starting point to educate us. I took the liberty of scouting through several definitions of feminism, yet I could not find a single one describing it as a movement started by elites in Washington, or indeed anybody in America. Perhaps I was not trying hard enough. What does the champion of our language, the Oxford English Dictionary, have to say about feminism in the context we are discussing it in this thread? Here is the definition - "Advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex; the movement associated with this"

That seems pretty plain to me. The OED also notes that the issue of rights for women first became prominent during the French and American revolutions of the late 1700s. Rockefeller wasn't even born until 1839, and even if he were of the 18th century prominence means that's when it became noticeable - feminism was already around before these revolutions.

Let's try some other dictionaries of repute and see what their prime definitions of feminism are. The Merriam-Webster defines feminism as "belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests."

I appreciated how this definition took care to note "expressed especially through such activity", not by any means exclusive to it; this definition clearly recognises the openness of feminism.

Collins - "Feminism is the belief and aim that women should have the same rights, power, and opportunities as men"

Cambridge - "the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state"

Britannica - "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities"

Enough of that, point made. You can argue semantics and origins as much as you like, but respected dictionaries say you're wrong and arguing against the dictionary is a little foolish. You say that it's other people on this thread who aren't "getting it", that they label gender equality and such as feminism and look stupid by doing so - are you sure it's us who don't "get it"? Would you like to re-read those definitions and try answering again?

You give credit to Rockefeller for "inventing" feminism. You do not mention Christine de Pisan, Charles Fourier, Mary Wollestonecraft? Why not? I'm genuinely interested to hear what it was you think they were doing. Did I miss the part where Rockefeller travels back in time and influences them?

Or let's go further back to mainland Europe. Do you remember when Italian women blocked the entrances to the Forum in protest against that politician who was against repealing laws which restricted their rights? Having read your comments on this thread I suspect you possibly don't - it was in the 3rd century BCE after all. It was most certainly an act of feminism, I'd most certainly have loved to have been stood by their side, and it most certainly was not orchestrated by any government or member of a nation yet to exist for another two thousand years (give or take).

I could go on, but this was only ever going to go one of three ways and nothing else I add will change it now - alea iacta est. Either I'll get ignored, or you'll reject that I'm telling you you're out of line and react negatively, or you'll take it on board, realise that you've not ***ted the best picture of yourself here (or at the very least failed on a massive level to explain yourself well and been inordinately and unnecessarily rude whilst doing so), and acknowledge that those things you claim to be "no debate factual" are indeed very much debatable due to their lack of basis in fact.

There is an absolute wild card fourth possible outcome, you've managed to sc*** a like on one of this thread's comments from somewhere so somebody must be on the same page as you - maybe you'll provide some credible source-based material for your claims. Maybe you'll be able to say, actually here you go, this is how I can demonstrate that Pisan et al weren't feminists and feminism didn't exist before Rockefeller, that Rockefeller and Washington elites invented it, that when Fourier wrote about it he was talking about something else entirely.

I don't mind being shown how I'm wrong, I'm the first to hold my hand up when I've erred. I like to learn, it's how I grow. What's it going to be?

Edited September 12, 2022 by Aranhis
Spelling mistake 🤷‍♂️

[ED****]

Lotsa super stuff in here if I may say, glad I came across this, sensibilities make heartwarming reading!