When needs and values clash

[CutieMouse]

I'm thinking more of things like service. I see that there is a difference between servicing your man because you choose to and because it's what you're supposed to do as woman, but does it really look different? Or does it still make me look like the apron-moms in childrens books from the 50's?

A man submitting to a woman or a woman submitting to a woman doesn't reproduce classical gender roles. In my mind they therefor have a very positive commentary on gender dynamics. It breaks with the norm.

I fought this battle a long time ago, and I think I shall bow out of the conversation now.

Rinka (and anyone else), I do hope you're able to resolve your inner conflict.

 

[ecstaticsub]

I figure if I could be a stay-at-home mom and a feminist at the same time I can certainly be a submissive and a feminist concurrently, too.

 

[sexymom]

"A man submitting to a woman or a woman submitting to a woman doesn't reproduce classical gender roles. In my mind they therefor have a very positive commentary on gender dynamics. It breaks with the norm."

As I see it, this describes your dilemma in a nutshell. In my early days, I felt the same way, despite the argument that feminism is about choice, and you can't support feminism without also supporting the choices women make.

What I've learned, though, is that everyone has some characteristic, belief, hobby, interest, etc. that doesn't fit in with their personal stereotype. These things are often fascinating, and they contribute a lot to making the person who they are. In some cases they are kept secret, due to their nature, but they are also often flaunted. Some examples I can think of off hand are the professional football player who is a classical concert pianist, the catholic priest who writes racy novels, the former female Supreme Court justice who is an avid back packer and big game hunter, etc.

My submission does sometimes involve public correction; but that is rare (because I'm good), and it is always done in good taste and appropriate to the situation- that's part of what makes my master worthy of my submission. The kids don't have any problem understanding this- just as they don't have a problem understanding any other pyramidal authority structure (pupil, teacher, principal, school superintendent). The situations where I'm corrected in public are pretty much the same as, for example, being stopped by the police for speeding, or being reprimanded for talking at a theatre or in church- the focus is on my doing something I should not have done, and there are no value judgements associated with my being corrected.

 

[rinka]

Are you talking about TPE, dinners on the table kind of stuff?

In D/s I think it would help if you viewed “equal” not as even, but as balanced. One person will have more power in one aspect, while the other will have more in a different aspect. For example, while he may domineer the bedroom, you could domineer financial decisions.

As far as feminist beliefs, you have them, you preach them, and you act them. So do you think they should restrict your taste in men?

If you express belief in equal opportunities to your son, then I doubt he’s gonna have issues. Best way to demystify mixed signals is to talk about it all openly. If he does end up sexist its probably just him.

Oh and by the way, don’t hide things from your son, don’t dance around anything, when, not if, the times comes you must talk about it to him, don’t avoid it.

Thing is, you may think its private, but when he’s 15 and spent the night away from home with the girlfriend he wont tell you anything about it cause its private. If you aren’t open he won’t be either.

I want balance.

And I completely agree with you in regards to not trying to hide things from children. I doubt that it's really possible, they pick up on everything. Which is why it does matter what kind of dynamic I am in.

 

[rinka]

Rinka,
I have the attention span of a gnat, so forgive me if I am repeating someone else, but............

As far as I am concerned, being submissive to ONE man, does not make you anti-feminist. Because, literally, no one else need know about your home or sex life, including your closest family.
The_mgp is my boyfriend's wife and my girlfriend and completely submissive to both of us, but no one else knows this, simply because she holds he own in society. She doesn't take shit off anyone...... except us, because, it's HER choice.
I believe this is the ultimate in feminism, simply because she chooses who dominates her and who doesn't.
Just because we have feminist ideals, doesn't mean we abandon our feminity. Otherwise it would be called masulinist, not feminist.
As for me, I consider myself a "bottom" to M. I don't feel the need to totally submit in day to day life, but sexually I can and usually do, I prefer it that way. I'm extremely dominant in most aspects of my life, including work, and general relationships, but giving over control to someone else is by no means anti-fem in my eyes. After all, there's always someone bigger/ better at it/ smarter/ faster/ harder/ prettier/ the list goes on, than you. If it feels good, why not just go with it?

KK

Ps, your ideals are YOURS not a predetermined set of rules set by society. Fuck it, make it up as you go along. Hell, if nobody strayed off the path we'd still be living in caves.

I don't see feminism and submission as a dichotomy. I am sure they can coexist and enrich each other. But they do affect each other in my life, and I have yet to figure out how to have what I want and need without compromising my personal ideals or making myself impossible.

 

[rinka]

Call me simplistic but I think this all basically comes down to consent. (snip)

If you choose to submit to a man then you are giving consent and much of what he does will be to please you. Most sane, considerate dominant men who live in the real world have absolutely no desire to impose their will on a woman without her full consent and desire for him to do so. As the saying goes "A dominant man can make a submissive do anything she wants to do." You know you're an intelligent, independent person. You know that you won't allow anything to occur that would compromise your public persona or the maternal authority and example you are to your child. No loving dominant would want to interfere in any of that. I see this as a totally different situation to the types of unjust inequality that feminism was founded to challenge.

JMHO.

Very well put, thank you.

 

[rinka]

But I actually don't know that striving for equality in terms of who is more powerful is even all that desirable. There are different ways to look at power and equality in a relationship context.

To use the housewife example, there is who is doing what. Is it equal in terms of housework, caring for the children, cooking dinner. Then there is authority and decision making power.

There is financial power. I was just reading an email from a person on my message board the other day about a woman who is a stay at home mom, is getting a divorce, and has no money of her own to pay for an attorney. That's a pretty scary position to be in.

There is emotional power. We've all heard people refer to someone in a couple as "controlling," before, whether it be a woman or a man!

And there is physical power. Rough sex. Holding someone down. Wielding a flogger in the right way. All that stuff.

To me, becoming conscious in a relationship meant that all of these things become negotiated. You don't have to be the giver in all of these categories to be submissive.

Service, as far as putting on an apron or whatever, may not be your bag.

I'm working on how to negotiate all these aspects, and I think this is a pretty big part of what I'm trying to grasp. How to manage this without coming with a mile long list of demands.

Also, have you read anything about people who are gender queer? Although I'm not, I think that there is something to take away from the ideas if you've been raised to be a strong, independent feminist woman and you're now taking on a very traditional female role. You can play with it in a lot of ways that are very cathartic.

I have studied some queer theory and find a lot of it very fruitful in order to understand the concepts of norm and deviance. I am however not very queer either. And I wasn't raised to be a strong, feminist woman. It has taken a lot of work based on conscious decisions. Maybe that's why the thought of compromising it too much is so scary.

I am having a hard time tapping into exactly what part of this is troubling to you, but it is helpful to remind yourself that you are not only consenting, which sounds very passive, but you are actively seeking and designing your own personal model.

Right now I don't know exactly what is troubling me. But I find the replies and discussion so far very interesting and thought-provoking.

At the end of the day, the power exchange in my personal relationship is not so important to my being a feminist. I mean, I just have bigger fish to fry. Like trying to figure out how to be the mother I want to be, and maintain my career. I think you have much better maternity leave (than us) in Sweden, if I'm not mistaken. Here in the U.S., we've got a long way to go.

But my personal relationship is essential in my parenting IMO. Every decision I make, every person I get involved with directly on indirectly affect me, my parenting and in extension him.

I am aware that the context here is very different than in the US. Other choices, other debates. Probably contributes to my perspective being slightly foreign to many of you.

 

[rinka]

I fought this battle a long time ago, and I think I shall bow out of the conversation now.

Rinka (and anyone else), I do hope you're able to resolve your inner conflict.

I would be very interested to hear about how you fought it and a little more about how you see it now. I asked because I wanted the perspectives of those with more and different experience. So far you have contributed to that, so thank you!

 

[rinka]

I figure if I could be a stay-at-home mom and a feminist at the same time I can certainly be a submissive and a feminist concurrently, too.

Of course you can.

But please tell me how.

Is it uncomplicated for you?

 

[rinka]

"A man submitting to a woman or a woman submitting to a woman doesn't reproduce classical gender roles. In my mind they therefor have a very positive commentary on gender dynamics. It breaks with the norm."

As I see it, this describes your dilemma in a nutshell. In my early days, I felt the same way, despite the argument that feminism is about choice, and you can't support feminism without also supporting the choices women make.

What I've learned, though, is that everyone has some characteristic, belief, hobby, interest, etc. that doesn't fit in with their personal stereotype. These things are often fascinating, and they contribute a lot to making the person who they are. In some cases they are kept secret, due to their nature, but they are also often flaunted. Some examples I can think of off hand are the professional football player who is a classical concert pianist, the catholic priest who writes racy novels, the former female Supreme Court justice who is an avid back packer and big game hunter, etc.

This was partly what I was getting at in my earlier post about making the pieces of the puzzle fit. I have several semicontradictory interests and beliefs, other than this. (politically, religiously and so on) It's what makes me me, but also messes me up at times.

My submission does sometimes involve public correction; but that is rare (because I'm good), and it is always done in good taste and appropriate to the situation- that's part of what makes my master worthy of my submission. The kids don't have any problem understanding this- just as they don't have a problem understanding any other pyramidal authority structure (pupil, teacher, principal, school superintendent). The situations where I'm corrected in public are pretty much the same as, for example, being stopped by the police for speeding, or being reprimanded for talking at a theatre or in church- the focus is on my doing something I should not have done, and there are no value judgements associated with my being corrected.

Thank you for sharing this, I need to think about it a little.

 

[sexymom]

There's one huge difference between submission the way it's done now- or at least the way it's usually done now- and the way it was in the 1950s and before. Back in the "good ol' days", the submissive status and lack of power among women was expected, normal, and often legally enforced. Now we get to choose and decide, and we can place whatever limits we desire or need on our submission.

I've come across many people, even in the D/s and bdsm world, who don't like the idea of punishment within a relationship of adults. That doesn't have to be a problem- it is possible to submit, yet withhold, or restrict, punishment authority. In the "outside" world, that happens all the time- no one has unlimited punishment authority, and most people have none at all. Maybe that degrades submission- I think it would in my case- but that doesn't mean the concept wouldn't work.

 

[JMohegan]

My submission does sometimes involve public correction; but that is rare (because I'm good), and it is always done in good taste and appropriate to the situation- that's part of what makes my master worthy of my submission. The kids don't have any problem understanding this- just as they don't have a problem understanding any other pyramidal authority structure (pupil, teacher, principal, school superintendent). The situations where I'm corrected in public are pretty much the same as, for example, being stopped by the police for speeding, or being reprimanded for talking at a theatre or in church- the focus is on my doing something I should not have done, and there are no value judgements associated with my being corrected.

I disagree with you here.

There are explicit value judgments made any time one person says "you misbehaved," and the other person accepts the correction. Unless you have the authority to chastise and correct your husband when HE screws up, the explicit message is that you are less capable of controlling your own behavior and more prone to erring in a significant way.

Children understand pyramidal authority structures, that's true. But they are also taught that legitimate reprimands (e.g., teacher to student, or parent to child) are valid because of the superior wisdom of the one doing the reprimanding. This is not authority based on matters of convenience. This is authority based on the responsibility of the superior person to instruct.

 

[sexymom]

"Children understand pyramidal authority structures, that's true. But they are also taught that legitimate reprimands (e.g., teacher to student, or parent to child) are valid because of the superior wisdom of the one doing the reprimanding."

Not sure I agree about the superior wisdom of Bush, McCain, Obama, Palin and company. Nor of many other people I am required to obey under various circumstances. However, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't accept the validity of your point of view. If it works for you, fine.

 

[JMohegan]

"Children understand pyramidal authority structures, that's true. But they are also taught that legitimate reprimands (e.g., teacher to student, or parent to child) are valid because of the superior wisdom of the one doing the reprimanding."

Not sure I agree about the superior wisdom of Bush, McCain, Obama, Palin and company. Nor of many other people I am required to obey under various circumstances. However, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't accept the validity of your point of view. If it works for you, fine.

Do you accept your husband's corrections because you acknowledge the legitimacy of his assertions, or just because you have to?

 

[CutieMouse]

I would be very interested to hear about how you fought it and a little more about how you see it now. I asked because I wanted the perspectives of those with more and different experience. So far you have contributed to that, so thank you!

I was a child in the 70s - when the feminist shatter-the-****-glass-ceiling movement was Queen. I had it drilled into my head that I could do anything, be anything, succeed anywhere - the fact that I was a girl had nothing to do with how far I could go... right up to the point where I made the choice to pursue a career as a wife, mother, and homemaker.

I wasn't living up to my potential; I was giving too much power to my [now ex] husband (It was not a D/s based relationship, BTW); I was turning my back on all the hard work of the feminists who came before me; with my "attitude" I *obviously* wanted to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

Whenever this sort of discussion comes up, it (IMO) boils down to "well of course it's all about personal choice... [but if you choose the traditional route/don't make the accepted PC decision, you're contributing to the problem, you know.]" The attitude that a woman's choice to take a traditional role in society, or be submissive in a relationship, or whatever somehow prevents -

Having the privilege to set the agenda, make definitions and formulate issues. Being the rule, not the exception. Having a place, not having to take it.

... to *me* that attitude (that women choosing submission/traditional roles/etc prevents that degree of power) is just as limiting as things were in a pre-feminist world, where women didn't have many choices/privileges, at all.

 

[intothewoods]

But my personal relationship is essential in my parenting IMO. Every decision I make, every person I get involved with directly on indirectly affect me, my parenting and in extension him.

Yes, yes, the choices you make in terms of romantic partners absolutely affect your child if your child has any awareness of your romantic life and who you share time with (for a young kid, it is possible to keep this separate if you have time to yourself, of course). But in the same way that you don't have sex in front of your kid, you don't have to have every dialogue in front of them either. Some things for me are private, and some things are family-only, some things are public, etc.

 

[Netzach]

B) doesn't send negative messages to children

Sure the fuck did to me.

Unless you manage to get through the message that mommy is making an empowered choice in a world of other choices and introducing your kid to people who make those OTHER choices, I hate to say this isn't so easy to pronounce.

It would have saved me a lot of rage. Yes, rage.

 

[sexymom]

"Do you accept your husband's corrections because you acknowledge the legitimacy of his assertions, or just because you have to?"

Good question. It made me think, and that is, to me, a very positive thing. We submit to authority in our lives for different reasons. In some cases, we don't have much choice (government officials, cops, etc.), but in most cases we submit voluntarily, because we gain something from the submission. For example, I might want to be a member of a club of some kind- I get some benefit from being a member- but to do so I must agree to abide by the rules. Disobedience might result in expulsion, but in some cases there are lesser punishments. This happens often in employment too- not all offenses get you fired.

So, to answer your question- I get something from being submissive. It's not required of me; I want to. That doesn't mean I can reasonably expect to enjoy or agree with everything that comes along with my submission. As opposed to masochism; submission, by definition (lol- my definition) involves a willingness to surrender control to some degree- with its attendant acceptance of authority and, sometimes, discipline.

 

[Netzach]

That I understand.

If the genders were reversed, and you were seeing a man submitting to a woman, do you feel that would have any impact/commentary on modern gender dynamics?

Yes.

Because it ALL does.

And if you think that a woman Dominating a man sexually is some kind of liberated stance, you're fooling yourself. It's just another spasm to the same patriarchy.

Personally I think these things are ALL reactions to the way the world is. Because it's the world. What, we live in THIS fucked up a world and we can expect sexualities having nothing to do with it?

My feeling is it's fucked up. But it's ALL fucked up, so it's ok.

 

[Netzach]

"Do you accept your husband's corrections because you acknowledge the legitimacy of his assertions, or just because you have to?"

Good question. It made me think, and that is, to me, a very positive thing. We submit to authority in our lives for different reasons. In some cases, we don't have much choice (government officials, cops, etc.), but in most cases we submit voluntarily, because we gain something from the submission. For example, I might want to be a member of a club of some kind- I get some benefit from being a member- but to do so I must agree to abide by the rules. Disobedience might result in expulsion, but in some cases there are lesser punishments. This happens often in employment too- not all offenses get you fired.

So, to answer your question- I get something from being submissive. It's not required of me; I want to. That doesn't mean I can reasonably expect to enjoy or agree with everything that comes along with my submission. As opposed to masochism; submission, by definition (lol- my definition) involves a willingness to surrender control to some degree- with its attendant acceptance of authority and, sometimes, discipline.

Do you think your children are hip to this subtlety when Dad "corrects" you in front of them?

Do you think they feel this way when you correct them?

 

[Netzach]

Rinka -

there's going to be conflict on this one if you're given to thinking about these things remotely like I am.

I have no interest in a sexual behavior that reinforces my politics, because honestly no one knows what that would look like. We'd have to have a few millenia of global equality for anyone to have a clue, and frankly I think it would be a sexuality I find dull.

Because this stuff is in our blood. For millenia. We're tainted beings trying to come up with SOME degree of justice in it all.

I absolutely feel that my desires, sexually, are reactions to a warped world, so they're warped reactions. As long as I'm not killing anyone, they're valid choices.

I definitely think you can be a feminist and a submissive. However I don't think that being submissive, dominant, or vanilla, or lesbian, or straight IS more or less feminist.

Watching my mother roll over every time she was confronted by anyone with a penis shaped me.
Watching my grandfather and uncle get to sit while I got yelled at to help with the dishes shaped me - I refused to do it as a kid, and I tend to be messy now to stake out my "not a fucking domestic" territory, not helpful in the long run, but interesting.

 

[intothewoods]

Yes.

Because it ALL does.

And if you think that a woman Dominating a man sexually is some kind of liberated stance, you're fooling yourself. It's just another spasm to the same patriarchy.

Personally I think these things are ALL reactions to the way the world is. Because it's the world. What, we live in THIS fucked up a world and we can expect sexualities having nothing to do with it?

My feeling is it's fucked up. But it's ALL fucked up, so it's ok.

Really good point. I had this feeling that my awareness of gender norms makes it okay, and that sex isn't politically correct, but you really hit the nail on the head. I don't know that all sex is working out deep psychological stuff and reactions to our fucked up world on a micro and macro level (sometimes you probably just get laid), but that is really why sex isn't politically correct. We as humans have to have a space in which we just act out all of those unconscious desires.

 

[Netzach]

And for anyone who thinks that it's SO MUCH MORE VALID to be a career woman than a stay at home mom try out this phrase:

"Oh I'm not interested in having children."

See how far you get.

Yes it sucks that stay at homeness is undervalued. Because now we're supposed to be perfect capitalist cogs who still squeeze out offspring TOO. And anything other than that is "something's wrong with you."

I'm sick to death of fighting the same people who should be fighting something much bigger than whether your working or non working choices are "chic."

 

[Netzach]

Really good point. I had this feeling that my awareness of gender norms makes it okay, and that sex isn't politically correct, but you really hit the nail on the head. I don't know that all sex is working out deep psychological stuff and reactions to our fucked up world on a micro and macro level (sometimes you probably just get laid), but that is really why sex isn't politically correct. We as humans have to have a space in which we just act out all of those unconscious desires.

EXACTLY.

It's a level of "unreality" (and I don't care if you are no, really REALLY a slaaaaave it's a level of "unreality" socially) to work with. Which we need.

 

[CutieMouse]

And for anyone who thinks that it's SO MUCH MORE VALID to be a career woman than a stay at home mom try out this phrase:

"Oh I'm not interested in having children."

See how far you get.

Yes it sucks that stay at homeness is undervalued. Because now we're supposed to be perfect capitalist cogs who still squeeze out offspring TOO. And anything other than that is "something's wrong with you."

I'm sick to death of fighting the same people who should be fighting something much bigger than whether your working or non working choices are "chic."

I read the bolded bit and had a jaded chuckle...

"Oh their father has primary custody; it was the right thing to do."

That's the point at which women look at me like I've grown six heads.