![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teleen_fiction) wrote2010-10-01 06:26 pm
- *invitation to discussion,
- asshat,
- beliefs,
- drama,
- epiphany,
- fail,
- feminism,
- fml,
- friends,
- high functioning autism,
- human rights,
- i have trust issues,
- i'm very stubborn,
- join the fight against suicide,
- karma,
- lgbtqp issues,
- live and let live,
- meltdown,
- men are human beings,
- misogyny,
- my identity,
- offline life,
- privilege,
- ptsd,
- racism,
- rants: societal and/or political,
- screaming into the wind,
- survival,
- the internet is public,
- this is a dictatorship,
- tsib,
- wank,
- whatever,
- whining
On Bullying
I'm going to start generally, because it's the only way I can even begin to find a place to start.
My first thought on the subject is that this is not a new issue. People have been bullied since the dawn of time because as a species, our instincts tell us that anyone who is different is not to be trusted and might cause hurt to the herd as a whole. In the animal kingdom, it's rare for other animals to help an injured fellow. It happens, but it's rare enough that when it does, it's considered unusual from everything I've seen. And the smarter the animal, the more likely it seems to be that it will happen.
So bullying goes back to our basest origins. It is the animal part of us that says we all must be the same, we all must conform for the good of the tribe, because we're all hunting and gathering and there's no time for anyone who's unusual in the crowd. Some tribes of humans eventually realized that those who are different might still be able to contribute and found ways for them to do so.
Some didn't.
There is always the question as to why bullying is tolerated. The answer is two-fold.
1) There's a perception that childhood is something that's supposed to toughen a person up for the real world and being bullied will make someone stronger. It's very definitely a sink or swim proposition, as so many recent news articles show. Because if the kid isn't strong enough to survive a few taunts and pranks, a few minor bruises, how will they ever be able to make it in the real world? If that sounds familiar, it's because it's the same argument that abusive parents have been using forever when they force their kids to go out for sports.
2) Those who are bullied are different. They are usually non-conformist and often question authority, which makes it easy for the authorities to turn a blind eye. Or they aren't. They're the ones who are easy for the administrators to get along with, the ones who wouldn't say shit if they had a mouth full of it (this was me, by the way) and because the squeaky wheel gets the grease, they're the ones that are passed over, the ones who suffer in silence until it's too late.
I was bullied. I was bullied for years. The only taunt I can really remember is 'ugly', though I'm sure there were others that have passed out of my mind. I was a weird kid in school. Very smart, very quiet and undeniably weird.
The bullying doesn't really affect me much anymore. What affects me is the one time I bullied. I was an outcast, but there is always someone who's more outcast. I remember her name, but for the purposes of this, I'll call her J. J. was fat. And when I say fat, I mean huge. She was a nine-year-old and weighed 125lbs. She and I would sometimes hang out because we were both outcasts. One day, I made a joke at her expense. I said that she was going to be fat for Halloween. I did it to try and get an 'in' with the crowd who was bullying me, which was stupid in retrospect, but I was nine.
I was bullied for something like a dozen years to one degree or another, but that's what I remember.
When I got to high school, I started standing up for myself and for anyone else whom I perceived to be the underdog.
I was still the weird girl. But I was a weird girl who was a full-blown woman from the neck down in high school, so I was able to find friends.
I hung out with the outcasts who were the criminal element in our school. The 'hoods'. They did little more than bring alcohol to school, smoke a little pot and cigarettes, all of which I was excluded from, by the way. None of them wanted to corrupt me. Even among the hoods, I was still different.
In the real world, I'm still an outcast. Yes, I have friends. Yes, I love them. But I still feel as though I'm the weird one, the one who always knows just enough to be dangerous about a given topic, but not enough to really talk about it intelligently.
Also, I lied when I said that the bullying didn't affect me. It's made me distrustful of people, because for a long time people only pretended to be my friends when they thought they could get something out of it. It's occasionally made me more passive - I always avoid a fight when I can, even though the bullying really was never physical that I can recall.
I sometimes wonder how much of my childhood I've forgotten.
And I've given in to bullies as an adult. Despite my ideals that I'd never let a bully affect me again, I still gave in to one.
She was an internet bully, a troll. I was intimidated by her and by the shit she'd done to others. I lost friends because of her, because of how I behaved when I was around her, stupidly wanting to fit in with the cool troll who didn't give a shit what anyone thought. I disregarded the feelings of someone who had every right to those feelings and there's no way that I can ever apologize for it, the depth of the fail was that much.
For what it's worth, I am sorry, though. I'm sorry for liking her. I'm sorry for trusting her. And I'm sorry for losing my principles, so very recently.
And that's the trap of a bully. I found myself wanting to fit in with her, wanting to be cool with her and not because she was a bully and I was afraid, but because on some level, I agreed with her. I could have lied there and said I only got in league with her because I was afraid of her, but it's deeper than that. She and I had chat conversations and I could see her point of view so easily. It's a point of view that I've been trying to escape, but for a little while there, she let me be who I used to be.
She let me have all the privilege I wanted and not have to feel guilty about it. Why feel guilty, anyway? This is only the internet, right? Anyone who doesn't like what's here can just turn off the glowing box, right?
It's not that simple, though.
Leaving aside the privilege, she also made me feel as though she was on my side. After all, there was a whole anonymous meme and I was the first person that they bothered to talk about. And kept talking about. There may or may not be people who are still on my friends list who also were a part of that meme. I say that because there were things shared on that meme that only could have come from locked posts.
I'd like to believe it was the troll who shared them there, but I have a couple of other suspects. And yes, they were fairly innocuous things - nothing about my childhood or my current problems - but still... The only way that they could have been known to be shared was if someone who had access to my locked posts shared them.
An anonymous meme is very tempting though, isn't it? You can go and talk about someone behind their back and then go back and read all of their most personal juicy tidbits. You wouldn't share the really personal stuff, though, would you? Only the stuff that 'defends' the person on whose friends' list you are, even though by the act of defending me, you betrayed me and my trust.
So now I have to wonder who is still on my friends list that I can't trust? And while I do think that the internet is public and that one shouldn't share anything here unless one wants it printed on the front page of the New York Times, that's only because I don't trust anyone.
I don't trust anyone because people like you and the troll (who might be the same person, I'm not discounting that), shared things that I put in locked posts. Minor things. Things that are unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
But still. Locked posts.
It may seem as though I've digressed here, but I haven't, because that's what bullying teaches. It teaches you that you have to bully or be bullied. You're either the hunter or the prey. You side with the trolls or you get trolled.
And you can't trust anyone. Because one day you might piss off one of your friends and have them publish your personal PM's that you sent back and forth, but it was no more than you deserved for friending a troll in the first place.
I haven't posted on this before now because everyone always says, "DO NOT ENGAGE". Ignore a troll and they'll go away. I didn't give in to the wankfest because I felt I deserved it. I deserved to have my personal PM's published because of who I sent them to in the first place. It was my fault for trusting someone with whom I'd had long conversations on chat about various topics. Conversations that I won't share, despite having the troll's permission to do so, because it's wrong.
It was a private conversation and private conversations are private. Now, those of you who know me know that I have one exception to this - RIII. If you tell one of us something, you're telling the other. But we make no secret of this. If there's something that you're telling one of us that you don't want the other to know, don't tell us. Period. Because the trust between us is more important than the trust between you and I, whomever you are. I don't say that to be offensive - I say it because it's true. And I expect any other similar partnership to behave in the same fashion.
The problem is that I can't share any of this with him because his answer would be that I just shouldn't have been online in the first place. Plus, it really doesn't matter. So a troll published my private conversations and some other anonymice are talking about me elsewhere.
Who cares?
I'd be lying if I said I didn't, but here's the thing and here's what I truly wish that we could get through to everyone who's ever been a victim of bullying in school - it only matters as much as you let it. Dan Savage's project sounds like a good idea in theory and I'd be participating if I had a camera, but here's the thing - to someone who's in that dark place, who sees no end to the pain, who sees their pain as unique to all human experience - no amount of 'hang in there' will help.
So what's the solution? Well, most bullying stems from a person not conforming to societal norms. As ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
kadymae posted today, we have to work from the top down. We have to change as a society and stop behaving like mindless animals who only follow our baser instincts. We have to start seeing people as individuals and judge them based upon how they treat other human beings, not on any arbitrary factors, like race, weight, looks, sexual orientation, gender identity - all of those things are insignificant when one looks at the broader range of human experience. I don't mean in any way to diminish what those with differences go through. but I do wish that we, as a society, could come to a place where they wouldn't have to go through so much, where people could just be themselves without all of that extra baggage about who they fuck or what surgery they had or how much they weigh.
Is that really too much to ask? I'm beginning to think that it is.
A while back, someone said to me that I seemed unusually accepting of those who are different. It really threw me for a loop because well, a) I can be an asshat sometimes but more importantly, b) why wouldn't I be?
Why should I care? Why is all of this bullshit so important? Why should someone be so distraught about their roommate filming them having sex with someone else that they kill themselves? To me, that reflects badly on the roommate. That shows them to be an untrustworthy piece of human filth who is most likely in the closet, because why else would you care so much about two men having sex? Oh, and it's wrong-thinking on my part, but RIII and I have lately come to the conclusion that anyone who is vehemently anti-gay is most likely closeted. It may not be the truth, but I think that it would be good as a society if we started making that assumption, to make being GLBTQ-positive the way that a person wants to be if they don't want others to think they're gay. I already know that there are serious problems with that thought, not the least of which is that there's NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GLBTQ IN THE FIRST PLACE, but even so...
So how do we stop this? How do we help other people to be as 'unusually accepting' as I am? I have no fucking clue, because I'm fucking weird, remember? I was an outcast for not caring. Hell, to this day, despite my job and the confidence it's given me, I'm still not one of the cool kids. Oh, I'm cool to other oddballs like myself, but never to anyone who's 'in'. And I'm beginning, finally, to realize that I don't want to be.
So why did I go with the troll in the first place? Because she was anti-PC and I thought that I wanted to be too, because the idea of 'thought police' is abhorrent to me. I'm coming to realize that being PC isn't about policing people's thoughts or telling them what to think, it's about trying to change the way they think to something more positive, to include everyone. I've always felt that way - I've only rejected the language. It's time that I started changing that as well, because the language we use IS tied to how we think and the only way to truly accept all other people is to respect them and use respectful language when speaking of them.
PC might be a dirty word now, but the underlying desire behind it I believe was a good one. The idea that every human being deserves respect and deserves to be treated with that respect.
I sided with the troll because she was was the underdog (or so I thought). She was the one who had been wronged and I always want to defend those who've been wronged.
However.
She took it to a level that went far above and beyond the original level of wrong. And she won't stop. It's no longer about getting justice - it's only about getting revenge, the latter of which I always thought I'd be in favor of. I'm a big fan of revenge stories, but honestly? This is all pixels on a screen and the only reason for her and her lot to keep it going is because they crave any attention, even negative attention, so long as someone is paying it to them. I could theorize that a some point the troll was trolled and it made her bitter at the world and willing to go and be just as big of an asshole to other people as they were to her, but it still doesn't excuse her behavior.
It doesn't excuse her breaching trust and continuing to fan the flames. And before anyone says that I'm only encouraging her by posting this - oh, well. The post is on bullying and she's the most recent example I have. And I admitted that I handled her badly, more than once now, so fuck it.
She's a bully. She's a bully who decided that my bad behavior would justify hers. And she was under no obligation to treat me well or honor my trust, not after I treated her badly. She was also under no obligation to accept the apology I gave her, no matter how bad I felt.
I hurt her. I hurt her and she lashed out at me by breaching my trust to try and give me the same level of hurt I gave to her. The problem with what she did is that again, even when I post anonymously, I still don't say anything that I wouldn't want shared, because as this situation proves, the only way to keep a secret between two people is if one of them is dead. So if any of you want to know if I said, 'x', show me the quote and I'll verify it, because I probably did.
Again, that's what bullying does. That's what a culture that not only allows, but encourages bullying does. It shows people that they can't trust anyone.
And as for those anonymous memes that allow people to wank and talk about others behind their backs without even having to put a flippin' screen name on them? I think that they're wrong, hurtful and that those who participate in the wank there are weak-willed individuals with the spines of jellyfish.
I will note that the first person who spoke about me probably did call me out to my face, so they at least had enough courage of their convictions to say something to me. Everyone else though? Everyone who talked about how wishy-washy I was because I have an open mind or generally had a good time making fun of my various quirks - I hope you had fun. I hope that running down who I am as a person made you feel better about what's going on in your lives. I hope that every hurtful thing you said made you feel better about yourselves.
But did it? Did it help you to point out my faults and talk about me? I hope so. I hope it made you feel better. I hope it showed you that you're better human beings than I am, that you had the strength of your convictions and never changed your minds about anything. I hope it showed you that you'll keep your opinion no matter how much evidence is presented to show that you're wrong - but you're not wishy-washy, so that's what matters. I hope it showed you that you don't have the weakness of having an open mind or being willing to actually listen when someone presents another argument to you.
I hope it showed you how much better than me you are.
I won't say that I'm better than you, because I know I'm not. Hell, I had a locked post with a special filter asking the opinions of others as to whether or not I should de-friend the troll. I talked about her behind her back, making me no better than any of you anonymice. It's funny that it took a troll for me to really understand what sort of person I am.
I'm... average. It's something of a revelation to me, because I really thought I was different, but no... When the chips are down, I'm just a regular human being, with all of the faults of same. I want to do better though. I have an open mind to being a better person, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that means.
A part of me wants to stop locking entries altogether, to just say what I'm thinking and feeling openly if I'm going to say it at all. I'm not going to for a number of reasons. The first is to protect my abuser. I'm still not ready to call him out publicly (or more publicly than a locked post). The second is that I'd like to believe that I can actually trust everyone on my friends' list, that I've defriended the people who would talk about me behind my back on an anonymous meme. The final, and most important, is that I have a right to privacy.
I have a right to have my business be my business. I have a right to say that some of what I say is private and that those who share it are lower than the scum on the floor of a taxicab. Just as I'm scum for talking about a troll who thought she was a friend of mine behind her back rather than just coming to her directly and telling her that I thought she was full of shit.
Bullying is a deeper problem than kids being called names on a playground. It's something that infects every facet of our society. It's the sewing circle in the small town talking about everyone in it who's not there. it's people wondering if Justin Bieber is gay. It's our human horrified fascination with anyone who is different from us, no matter what that difference is. It's only human, but it's still a shitty way to behave because most of the time, the differences don't matter.
And the ones who are dangerously different - the rapists, the child predators - know how to hide. That's the problem with having instincts mixed with intelligence. We have our instincts telling us that different could be dangerous and most of the time our intelligence isn't enough for us to understand that most of the really dangerous people are smart enough to hide. But we ignore that and pick on the obviously different because they're easier to catch.
This entry is long, rambling, repetitive, probably incoherent and I feel as though I've strayed from my essential point. You be the judge.
no subject
If you are for equal or commiserate pay for women,
If you are for showing the value of importance of "women's work,"
If you are against the abuse and disempowerment of women and children,
If you are against the disenfranchising of women and children because they do not bear a man's last name,
If you are against racism, bigotry, and homophobia, and firmly believe in all human rights,
Do not support man-bashing (which I despise)
You are a feminist. Female = woman Feminist = pro-woman no matter who she is, where she is, and what she does.
Feminism is NOT anti-stay at home mom, NOT anti-housewife, NOT anti-sex worker. All else is propaganda or poor example. The ones you speak of are NOT the only feminists, and because they do not defend women in beauty pageants, sex work, or look down at housewives, they are not true feminists.
Feminists are the ones who started the research into the true value of housewives in hourly pay at a living wage. It came out to be a hefty yearly sum. And that does not count the physical wear and tear of bearing children and being mom, stay at home, or working. Feminists are the ones who raised the consciousness of sharing chores when inflation (not feminism) started the upwards creep on the cost of living that forced both husband and wife to work (or both partners to not be exclusive on definitions.)
A dear friend of mine entered a traditional religion and order, and married within it. Their order dictates that the man is head of household, and he directs everything in the house and family. She is very much a feminist, she is strong, outspoken, and hasn't any trouble with what I see feminism as, because we have extensively discussed these matters and agree. She entered practice and counsels abused women because she has been there herself. Her husband is very supportive and very understanding of women.
I see Teleen as very much a feminist, and her calling and her love of it, and her entries describing her work, adds a rich dimension to feminist studies. I have always condemned the stigma attached to sex workers, and I have always condemned those "self identified" feminists who fail to defend sex workers and and failing to defend women in other areas such as beauty pageants. Mike Tyson's abused wife, for one.
If you think feminism is what is limiting your choices and forcing couples to live on two incomes, think again. It is not fightng for equal rights for women that did it, it is oppurtunist men and commercialism that did it. Blaming feminists and feminism for destroying a woman's chances for being a stay at home wife and/or mom is the gatekeeper mentality -victim blaming.
If you think I am not familiar with your stance on the subject, you have made a very poor assumption. I come from a very conservative background and used to believe the same way, that feminism has ruined my chances for happiness being a stay at home mom. But with deeper investigation, I found this is not the case. True feminists are NOT against housewives and stay at home moms. I know this after years of feminist study and study in finances.
no subject
I thank you for enlightening me on the fact that there is some kind of link between feminism and children's rights? I did not know that.
I have first hand experience with violence against both women and children, as my ex-stepfather was a violently abusive alcoholic. From ages 7-11 I lived with an abusive man. When I was 15 I put my step-father in prison (http://www.state.mi.us/mdoc/asp/otis2profile.asp?mdocNumber=311289) for almost 12 years (he was paroled (http://www.mipsor.state.mi.us/PSORSearchDetails.aspx?oid=11392104) within the last year) for multiple counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct with a minor under the age of 13, with several 'codes' (person in authority, used intimidation, lived with the victim, restrained the victim and more I really don't want to get into) attached to those. (He pled down to 3 counts from many more, as it went on for 4 years, from my ages 7-11)
That same man beat both me and my mother, and abused us in other ways.
I belong to several groups which work to stop the exploitation, trafficking, and abuse of children (Including antichildporn.org (http://www.antichildporn.org/) and several other groups, but this already TL;DR).
Anyway...
I qualified my statements and made it clear I wasn't speaking of ALL those women who ID as feminists with this: Women identifying as "feminists" (Instead of just saying 'feminists') have, in cases actually taken certain choices away from women, or at the very least added stigma (or more stigma) to certain choices women might make in their lives.
The 'stigma' was women in the sex industry. The 'taking choices away from women' was 'being a stay at home mom'. I will explain each in full, so you can understand where I am coming from, especially on the second statement.
Going along with the idea that 'perception is reality', there is enough of a perceived link by the general public between feminism and the anti-pornography movement that I'm not comfortable taking on the label of 'feminist' (despite my staunch support of not just 'women's rights' and equality for women, but ALL HUMAN RIGHTS and EQUALITY FOR ALL PEOPLE) because enough people see someone say 'I'm a feminist' and make the assumption that that would mean I hold the same beliefs as these feminists.
Feminists Against Pornography (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x1054)
Blog Of Feminist Activism Against Pornography (http://charliegrrl.blogspot.com/)
Women Against Pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Against_Pornography)
The Anti-Pornography Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement) still lists it's supporters as, "People involved in the anti-pornography movement include religious groups,[3] feminists,[3] ex-porn stars,[4], psychologists, and individuals who feel that pornography plays a major role in the breakdown of marriages and relationships," and has an entire section labeled as 'Feminist Objections' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement#Feminist_objections).
Worse still is this section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_pornography#Anti-pornography_feminism") (Anti-Pornography Feminist Views) of this article entitled, Feminist Views on Pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_pornography)... The article was 'disputed' AFTER it was edited to INCLUDE the fact that not all feminists are anti-porn.
It is not that I believe all feminists are anti-porn. It is that I have encountered enough OTHER people who believe that that it makes me uncomfortable labeling myself as a 'feminist' everywhere I go, because I know there will be those who ASSUME that I disapprove of the sex industry based on that statement.
no subject
If you don't want to identify yourself as a feminist, that's fine, I've just seen too many women back away from it to please someone else, not because they had well thought out reasons. I should have made the distinction.
I take a libertarian view on pornography. It shouldn't be outlawed, but hope people have the common sense to not display it before kids and where it is not appropriate.
Those women in those sites you showed are really of the fringe element. I wonder what happened to them that they feel this angry. I understand some of the frustration over men who are just crude pigs who exploit women, but I respect the women who can get in there and get good pay for it as sex workers. And not all men who enjoy sex workers are disgusting pigs, they simply enjoy the sight of women. I think Teleen is a better expert on this, anyways :) More power to her being successful. Feminists of this stripe fail to realize that a woman can be a sexual force in charge of her own sexuality and can display it in confidence. She isn't a passive sexualized object being exploited by men.
Men should be blamed for when pornography is excessive, not the women working in the industry. So called feminists who attack or criticize women in the sex industry are no better than self rightious bible thumpers who condemn sex workers.
I get tired of the "boobs, boobs, boobs" fixation as shown by these women, but it's not the fault of the sex workers. Men have allowed themselves to be swayed by the media that promotes certain body types of women and condemns others. Men are by nature visually orientated and that is what these man bashers are condemning. They would do better to attack mags like Cosmo that plays too much into promoting the ultra thin top heavy image of women so that women outside the sex industry are promoting it, too, so much so that "ass" and "leg" men seem to be on the wane. Men shoud be challenged to recover what really turns them on, not just the need to display the "perfect busty blonde" conquest to other men.
Sex workers were sacred in Babylon, where men went to temple of Ishtar to be taught by priestesses how to please women in bed. Temple dancers and courtesans for hire were also sacred, (like Firefly). It's sad it's not like that any more.
:D <3
I suppose I too should have made the distinction between those feminists who are level-headed and working for equality vs those who use feminism as an excuse to man-bash.
I feel like the man-bashers have somewhat ruined the term, and stolen the original ideals to some extent.
I am very much for 'personal freedom'... And I feel like women should have as much personal freedom as men do.
If a man is in a porno, he is a 'stud', but a woman does the same thing, and she's a 'whore'.
I really hate that double-standard, as well as the many MANY other double standards that exist.
I have many friends who are feminists and I find myself agreeing with their ideals, it is only the TERM that I have problems with... and only because of the ignorant people who will make assumptions based on IDing myself with that term, and I have very little time to try and educate the willfully ignorant. XD;;;
I get tired of the "boobs, boobs, boobs" fixation as shown by these women,
I have a large chest naturally, and I get tired of the 'Boobs boobs boobs' thing too... However I feel like sex workers are more taking advantage of that reality than promoting it.
If someone is going to be disadvantaged in some way, and they can find a way to turn that disadvantage into an advantage, then I have no problem with their choice to do so.
I see sex workers (the ones who are doing it of their own free will of course! NOT the ones being exploited or abused, those women we should do all in our power to help! Including getting them away from pimps, but also providing education and opportunity early on) as reclaiming the power of a woman's sexuality.
Women are BEAUTIFUL and they are sensual and sexual... That doesn't have to be a BAD thing! I believe that women have a RIGHT to be sexual, to enjoy their sexuality, and to OWN their sexuality without being shamed for it. :D
Invitation! <333
I'd be forever grateful if you could share your views in my latest post, found HERE (http://ravyn-skye.livejournal.com/62891.html?format=light).
I would like to show the OTHER SIDE of "feminism" equally, and I feel like you would be an absolutely WONDERFUL person to represent modern feminism that does not include shaming of women for their choices.
I am going to friend you so that you can comment in my journal. If you would like, I will defriend you after you are finished commenting. :)
Re: Invitation! <333
I might not comment on your post immediately (Sunday's my only day off :( ) but I'll enjoy discussing what feel about things!
Re: Invitation! <333
I also write historically accurate fanfic for ancient Japan, and going along with the culture the female character is married to the male when she is 15 (after her mogi ceremony, which means she is an adult woman ready to marry by her culture and time-period's standards) and he is 19 in human years, (he's a nature-spirit and doesn't age past that age, he's timeless).
If this is a major moral objection for you, (as loli is a major moral objection for MANY on my f-list, including teleen) then I'd only ask that you please DO NOT read any of my Sesshoumaru/Rin fanfics that are listed as anything other than Adult!Rin. (She will be over 18 in 90% of my fic, however if she's younger than 18, I will WARN for it!!!)
Re: Invitation! <333
I've written lolicon myselfFriends then, cool!
Friends! <333
I get a lot out of writing a young girl as having total power over an older male... It's therapeutic for me, given my history.I will respond to your comment (thank you for taking time out on your day off!) shortly; my son is asking for lunch, so I'm going to make him something to eat. :)
Re: Friends! <333
More power to you, I say :)Yes, kids must be fed. First commandment of the house... :D
no subject
Just FYI, ;).
Also, I really wish we had a system like they had in Firefly - both those who were a part of the industry and society as a whole would be safer and happier, :).
Late response
I might be horribly wrong, but I think in an environment that you work in, it could be men feel more free with what they find attractive, even if it is somewhat out of the "acceptable standards." You did mention that women of all body types can be good dancers and get good pay.
But out here in "mainstream" (and I do mean quotes) society, men seem to be peer pressured into selecting the woman who fits the media image. Sometimes I wonder if some men are really paying attention to what really turns them on, as opposed trying to measure up to what his buds think is a "conquest." After all, look at how many men find the "right" woman, marry her, and end up later on coming out of the closet after trying their best to fit (thank you, homophobia). It's not unlikely, that to a lesser extent men do end up with women who not exactly their sexual preference (and they end up in clubs for their fantasies.) I think that out of all the men I have spoken with one admitted to be an ass and leg man, while another loved long legs above all else.
Or men just don't feel so free to admit what they like in "mainstream" society. IDK. It seems all men are breasts, breasts, breasts. And hate a woman with any sort of real ass.
Just my impression.
I so gotta see all of Firefly to see how their system works. Maybe it will give me more ideas of the sacred courtesans and dancers of this one people that I want to write about, which has both male and female temple acolytes and courtesans.
Re: Late response
And I highly recommend Firefly for that, as it's explored in more than one episode...
The second 'stay-at-home-mom' point
Many took the idea of stay-at-home-mom = oppression VERY seriously. Women went to work outside the home in record-setting numbers, and it transformed our society's households from majority 1 income to majority 2 income.
This doubling of income had the inadvertent economic affect of creating record inflation, and cost of living shot way up. Prior to 1976 MOST FAMILIES lived on one income Today it is almost impossible to have a family and children on only one average income.
MANY WOMEN TODAY HAVE TO WORK, instead of WANTING to work. Being a stay-at-home-mom just isn't an option for most women anymore. :(
It was certainly NOT something that the feminists of the 1970's could be expected to have foretold, and certainly their gains are admirable, but UNFORTUNATELY their well-intentioned activism led to a situation where now-a-days many would-be and want-to-be stay at home mom's no longer have the choice.
Re: The second 'stay-at-home-mom' point
There are a lot of women like me who consider themselves feminists, and don't like the confusion of it being a label for the man bashers, and anti-housewife, anti-stay at home mom.
This doubling of income had the inadvertent economic affect of creating record inflation, and cost of living shot way up. Prior to 1976 MOST FAMILIES lived on one income Today it is almost impossible to have a family and children on only one average income.
I used to think this, too. But it is a fallacy.
1. the economy has been going this direction for almost a century. It wasn't women working outside the home who caused the great depression, or any of the recessions since then. It wasn't women who took the currency off the silver standard or the gold standard. It might have been men starting to take on two jobs to make two incomes to keep up with the costs of living. It wasn't a handful of radical feminists going to work who destroyed the economy. Many women started going to work after Nixon took the currency off the gold standard in the '70s because they had to. (I've studied some finance and economy - who plays with the economy? The Federal Reserve)
2. This implies that women should have stayed home to keep the cost of living from going up, as if they were responsible (again, the Fed, the government playing with the currency that causes inflation). That's a pretty tough position for a single mom like myself. Those of us who do not have the good fortune of having a husband would suffer because no one would have challenged glass ceilings, or minimum wage levels. Instead we would have to be with content low paying jobs when we can work.
3. Some women, myself included, have found that being independent of men is the best way. You are indeed very fortunate to find a man that can be depended on and not abusive of even the subtle power nuances of the one who brings home the money. Good men, very good decent men, are out there, yes, but not all of us are going to win one.
4. No woman should have to justify wanting to earn her own money, married or not. This is the positive outcome- women shouldn't have only housewife as an option for life.
5. Most men don't want to "take care" of a woman. You can blame it on the women's rights movement, but there are plenty of viewpoints that men feel liberated from having no choice but be the "head of household," or "breadwinner," or the "wallet"
It even allows for the role reversal of a cousin of mine who is the breadwinner, being successful at her career, and her husband is the caretaker, he stays at home with the kids, cooks, cleans. They've done this for some decades now, and they're very happy.
Re: The second 'stay-at-home-mom' point
I appreciate intelligent conversation, debate, etc., with those who are intelligent, well-informed, articulate and mature. <3
Sadly, too often the label of "feminist" is taken on by women like the one I just wrote up an entry (http://ravynskye.livejournal.com/62891.html?format=light) about, and that has become a more prevalent perception of feminism recently... There has been backlash from both men and women because of those man-bashers who have hijacked the feminist lable and used 'feminism' to justify their vilification, bashing and stereotyping of men.
Some men are assholes. I know this first hand. I still have trust issues with men, and for a long time I did not see men as CAPABLE OF 'LOVE' in the same way that women are. I truly believed that any 'love' they were showing or expressing was only shown because they had the ulterior motive of wanting sex.
Luckily, over time, and therapy, and meeting men who gained my trust and respect, I overcame those beliefs... But I certainly was no fan of the male gender for many of my formative years.
The economy since the 1930's had a pretty stable cost-of-living raise each year until it exploded in the 1970's and even financial analysts attributed that to women working outside the home more than ever before. That is also why it stabalized relatively quickly and went back to about 3% a year after 1987.
Despite this, I certainly wasn't implying women should have stayed home if they wanted to work. I apologize if that wasn't made clear. What I was trying to say was that women should never have been made to feel like staying home was a BETRAYAL to their gender or a form of slavery, or 'prostitution'. (The argument being that a single income relationship where one party financially supports the other is the same as trading sex for money.)
*I* was, just THREE MONTHS AGO, wanked for being "financially dependent" on my Sig Other. I RESENT THAT. I RESENT that I should have to JUSTIFY my CHOICE (to other women, no less) to stay at home and raise my child.
Just as you are totally correct when you say that woman should NOT have justify wanting her own money, or wanting to work, or feel bad for demanding equal pay as a man in the same position, *I* (and women like me) should NOT have to justify being comfortable allowing my Sig Other to handle the bills while I raise (and home school) my child.
I would NEVER attack a working mother for having a job and not staying home... So why can working mothers attack ME and try to make ME feel ashamed for ?not putting my TWO COLLEGE DEGREES to good use"?
AREN'T WE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE?
I believe in independance for women, and women having the tools to make that a reality. I am educated. I have two college degrees. I am fluent in two languages and conversational in four. I could go back to work tomorrow if I so choose, because there is ALWAYS a nursing shortage.
But yet, I was still 'shamed' by others because I CHOOSE to be dependent financially for the time being?
Re: The second 'stay-at-home-mom' point
Oh, absolutely. My point was that because of Nixon taking the currency off the gold standard and the resultant inflation, a lot of women had to go to work to support their families and help their husbands. And the market sucked right in and took adavantage of it. I know that Bush Jr. (no matter what anyone says about him) promised to try to return the economy to where moms can stay at home if they wanted to. But by then it was beyond the point of no return. The market just ran away with it, and no one president after Nixon can be held singly accoutable for the economy. (and I don't want to get into politics, either, I see good and bad on both sides.)
Well said, you should never have to justify staying at home with your child. Never. Being a stay at home mom isn't slavery when you have the freedom to choose to be a housewife. Hell, I see having work a job a form of slavery. I resent it because I don't have a chance to do what I really want to do, which would be based at home, and I didn't have the chance to spend as much time with my daughter.
I hate it when people slam home schooling. Like making your kid go to public school will "toughen" them up somehow. Is that what is important, making your kid socially adjustable to jerks, or that your child really learns important academics that will get a good college education? Since when is "socialization" more important in school than academics?
A lot of women feel the same way. And a lot of men. They want to stay home more often to be with their families. Now we have to work so many hours and often a 40 hr week isn't enough. And these damn companies have a monopoly on our time. Pay isn't enough, so we have to work more hours. Both parents.
I watched something develop that I found very satisfying:
Talk shows like Oprah and Montel in the '90s had audiences and guests who condemned women who wanted to stay at home as housewife/stay at home mom. Any guest who expressed a desire to stay at home was booed. This made me so damned angry.
But a few years later talk shows now cater to housewives and stay at home moms. Ha ha! They must have gotten a lot of nasty grams from furious stay at home moms. The producers learned that stay at home moms were the main audience.
And to your last point :)
Most men do not want to "take care" of a woman."
I'd be cautious of making such a sweeping generalization. I consider myself fortunate in that each of the men and women I've been with has wanted to "Take Care" of me to some extent, (though I likely attract that type of partner because my own personality is more submissive) while at the same time RESPECTING me and not making me into a "child" or themselves into a "father/mother" figure as opposed to a romantic partner.
I think that ANYONE in a relationship should have SOME desire to take care of the other. The woman should want to do for the man and the man should want to do for the woman. (I'm speaking of heterosexual relationships here, because we are discussing men/women - not because I see heterosexual relationships as the only 'norm'.)
True, I don't think anyone would want a partner that is totally incapable of caring for themselves, but there are plenty of men who take pride in caring for and providing for their wives and children. My Sig Other is one of them.
Just as I take that same pride in "taking care" of both him and my son. I may not bring in as much money (about a quarter of his income, because I'm on disability due to chronic and debilitating illness), but my contributions come in other, just as meaningful, ways.
I am a naturally more submissive person, and my partners of BOTH genders are usually more dominant than I am - by my own choice. Being more comfortable in a submissive role does NOT however mean that I would ever allow myself to be disrespected or abused by a partner.
There are men who prefer more submissive personalities in their female counterparts; but the same can be said of women.
The fetish community is full of men who want to "take care" of women , and 'loving dominant' and 'guide/teacher/caregiver' are popular a sub-genres of "Dominant"; those who have no wish to humiliate or debase or cause pain, but still enjoy being the one 'in charge'. Those roles are not NECESSARILY gender specific though. That's not a man/woman thing... It's a HUMAN thing.
Some type-A women prefer men who will allow them to take charge more often, as well; and there are just as many men who prefer that type of woman!
It's a very individual thing, and not really gender-related, imho.
Relationships work when both parties are happy with the arrangement and gender isn't so much a concern as the two (or, if you're poly, more) personalities complimenting each other.
I AGREE with you that women should, OF COURSE, have all the same opportunities and rights as men, and that they should NOT have to apologize for DEMANDING EQUALITY... I'm only saying that it would be nice if we didn't lose some choices while gaining others.
Re: And to your last point :)
Let me explain this one. It comes from a lot of men today. In part I understand not all men want to tbe the traditional family man. But in a large part it really squicks me because this is where men have been taking advantage of women's greater freedom. They have it set up where they can get a woman to live with him but put off marriage. Read any of Sherry Argov's books for some eye opening stuff that men do.
Of course this is not all men, but enought that it has impacted a woman's choices in finding marriage and family. It is also is a put down of women who do want the traditional family stay at home mom marriage.
One thing that has really irritated me about a lot of men is that they will get some girlfriend to move in with them, and gripe among themselves that she wants to quit work and go to school, or something. Men are so fixated on that. It just seems nowadays men can easily get a women to move in with him and bring in that extra paycheck.
Re: And to your last point :)
I agree with this to a certain extent. I think that we, as a society have spent a lot of time telling men that they are superfluous in one way or another and they're taking it to heart, :(.
Sadly, from a biological standpoint, they simply aren't as valuable as women. Sorry guys - it's simple math. If you have 10 men and 100 women, the species will survive. 10 women and 100 men... it's iffy, :(.
In the past, they overcame this by subjugating women, forcing monogamy and generally making themselves indispensable by making it bad for women to work outside of the home. They made themselves valuable by providing the support for the offspring.
Now, we're telling men, 'We don't need you' and again, they're taking it to heart. I'm not sure how to fix it without going backwards, but we need to find some way of making men feel useful again, :(.
Personally, I'm for *equality* without one gender saying that it's somehow better than the other, sigh. I get so sick of women who think that they're better than men simply by virtue of genitalia. It annoys me.
Re: And to your last point :)
Man-bashing isn't being helpful, either. I agree on the woman thinking they are superior. There's a lot of crap that lots (not all) of women tend to do that annoy me.
Re: And to your last point :)
Re: And to your last point :)
Re: And to your last point :)
"A person can be smart... People are stupid..."