Hmmmm, I would have thought that any woman who thought she had the right to think was...a woman. And as such, a being with a wholly unique mind and soul. Why the need for a label?
The greatest irony perhaps is that a woman, or indeed a Man, by their very belief in the word Feminism, give proof positive of the "movements" founding premise. That women are indeed equal to men.

For the need of some, to move away simply from being a Woman, and ascribe a label to the idea that Women are equal to Men, one which, once out there would only serve to divide a gender into those who embraced said label and those who rejected it. Shows proof positive that a woman can be just as big a idiot as any man. And if that isn't equality, what is?

"Reconciling feminism with a submissive intimate life is easy." When I read that, all I could feel was how much more the true power of a women would have been conveyed if, instead, there had been, "I am a Woman. And I know submission, in my Husbands strength and all that he is. What is there to reconcile?"

Yet for all that Maddy. You sound as though you are very happy in both submission, and love. Something few women get to experience. And that in the end, is all that is important.

Craig.
Sydney, Australia.
mrcraiganthonyhotmail.com
http://profiles.yahoo.com/mrcraiganthony

Little one, names given to identify political beliefs, fashion accessories, and industrial manufacturing advancement, are a world removed from the simple truth, that we are each possessed of a wondrous, unique soul, that is not bound in its worth by gender.
Names should be, and indeed are, given to identify everything from inanimate objects, to belief systems, as merely a consequence of language. But to those few truths that reach right to the soul? They need no label. Indeed only a simpleton would believe that one could be coined that would ever capture even a fraction of what was embodied therein.
For such a truth of the soul, is not assimilated. It is known. Felt at a level beyond words. And yet, some do not know it. And this will always be so. A person cannot be brought to appreciation of a piece of music, if it is simply not within them to hear and recognise the magic that is its gift.
Now, the truth I describe, is lived by millions of women everyday. Lived, because it is felt. They do not need a label. And in fact, ask many if they identify themselves as feminists, and they immediately recoil. The image of a bunch of shrill, humourless women, often with appalling hair cuts, who, if they fronted up on your doorstep, you would think had come to fix the toilet, leaping immediately into their mind. “Feminists? A bunch of self appointed arbiters on what they should think and how they should live? Thanks, but no thanks. I’m just happy being me. And living my life.”
And yet, all these women, who clearly do believe they are equal in worth to men, and yet disassociate themselves completely with Feminism, you conveniently overlook. Quite a feat when it is they who are in the vast majority. After all, there are so many happy, strong women, with a true sense of self worth, who do not identify with the feminist label at all. Would you suggest that they need to, in order to know this self worth and strength Maddy?
And yet the more telling question is, not why these healthy, normal, self confident women, reject being labelled as feminists. That has already been answered above. But why there is a small minority of women, who actively seek out such a label.
Now angel. Yes, I did use words such as idiot and fruit cake (for those who have no idea what this is in reference to http://www.takeninhand.com/node/45). I also used the following, “To touch someone as I did you. Is a reward of such immense value.” Yet I noticed that you did not include that. It couldn’t be because you were selectively picking words in an effort to bolster your virtually nonexistent argument, could it? Something which speaks volumes by the way.
And now we come that wondrous story. Here little one, you truly made me laugh. Chuckle, what comes next? The one about the hooker who gets swept of her feet by the millionaire? Wait a minute! That ones already been taken. Damn that Julia Roberts!
Sweetheart, when a Woman gives submission, she in effect gives herself. Entrusting herself totally to her Man. Before she can give this most ultimate of gifts though. He must have proved himself worthy. He must have proved his, Strength. A word holistic, in that incorporates all of a Man. His dominance, love, laughter, everything. He must prove that he is able to hold, nurture, and protect, that which would be entrusted to him.
THIS IS SUBMISSION.
But let's go further. Let's break submission down. Let's look at some of the feelings that are used to describe it.
Security. Loved. Cherished. Arousal. Completion. Intimacy. Trust.
And that’s just a handful.
All of these feelings, just like submission itself, know genesis in a Man’s strength. And as such, is felt only with, THAT Man. A simple truth, yet one you appear to be blindingly ignorant of.
Submission and the emotions it carries, does not translate itself into interaction with weak little boys. There is nothing to reconcile as you seem to believe. For there is no carryover from one to the other. Submission is not an artificially effected mindset, where a woman consciously acts in what she perceives to be a submissive way. If it were, then yes, as you suggest, she would have to consciously alter again her behaviour, or projected role, in a different environment. In this case the work environment. But submission is not a conscious mindset. It is a helpless response. A woman knows submission with HER man. Not, ALL Men.
A case in point. I vividly remember a girl whom I awoke to devouring submission. Now this girl, went away on a camp with a group of old college friends, an annual event. And before she left, told me exactly what was going to happen. The same thing that happened every year. She would boss around, and completely dominate, all the weak little boys there. Speaking to them in a manner, which, as she said, she would never even think of using on me. And at time I had laughed. For her behaviour was so natural. A woman, a true woman, does disdain weakness in a man. Holding no respect for it. Anyway, I sent her on her way with a smack to her butt, and another laugh, telling her to think of me whenever she was giving her male friends/acquaintances a hard time. Lol, and boy, did she ever give them that! And too, once her girlfriends saw her doing it. They all joined in as well! And there was the laughter, of the kind that is always given by women in such situations. The one that masks the loss that is felt, even if it is not able to be articulated, at the absence of Masculine strength and Dominance.
At the end of her week away, she came back to me. Well, melted into me. Knowing submission again in an instant in my presence. There was nothing to reconcile. She knew who she was. She understood precisely what submission was. There were no uncertainties. No questions as to how she should act in any given circumstance. The submission she knew in the presence of my strength, as natural, and unconscious, as the dislike and absence of respect she had felt in the presence of the weakness which came from the little boys that had surrounded her.

Hmmm, it would seem this need to reconcile submission with other perceived roles, is not the universal, “self evident” phenomenon you think it is. Talk about the sky falling in!

And as for conundrums. Are they anything like the bongo drums?

Craig.
Sydney, Australia

mrcraiganthonyhotmail.com

http://profiles.yahoo.com/mrcraiganthony

Your balanced and reflective comments made my day. Your closing sentence should be framed! In fact that is exactly what I am going to do:

We all deserve equality in connection and we all deserve an undiminished free will.

Maddy

Craig, perhaps you are young and don't remember what the situation used to be like for women before feminism. Or perhaps you have never been a member of a group which did not enjoy full citizenship. Let me tell you about it. In the old days, a woman who was a college graduate was a lucky and rare bird, but she might not necessarily have been able to exercise or advance in her chosen career. She could expect to be paid less than a man doing the same job, and she had no legal recourse to correct that injustice. Married women couldn't borrow money in their own names, leaving them vulnerable if the marriage ended for any reason. I could go on.

You ask why we need labels. It's not about your "soul," it's about political action. If you want political change, like voting rights or financial reforms, individuals need to work together. They need to identify with a common goal, and they need a label to identify them as working together. The way people in the majority culture do this is through political parties, but the declaration, "I'm a democrat," or "I'm a whig" or "I'm bull-moose" is never considered a limiting label because it is obviously a choice. Tories are made, but women are born. So when you identify politically "as a woman with other women" (as we do as feminists) it potentially has implications beyond the political (in a way that identifying with other people for land reform and joining the free soil party does not). Early feminism capitalized on that because it had to.

When gays or women or blacks adopt a group label to affect political change, it is called "identity politics" and while it is an important step in getting the rights of these groups recognized, it is limited. After a point it becomes clear, in the case of feminism for example, that immigrant women probably have more in common (in terms of what they consider their political/economic priorities) with immigrant men than with native-born women, and the group breaks down.

When identity politics starts to fall apart, which usually happens when the group has won to a large extent what it wanted, the label starts to be seen as limiting the potential of the individuals in the group. I still consider myself a feminist, but that no more defines me than the platform of the political party to which I belong. This separation is a privilege the early feminists did not share.

We have won a place in the larger world of politics and economics. Maddy and I are engaged in activities that would have been closed to our mothers. There is now a necessary and welcome division between private and public life that makes it possible for Maddy to be the strong woman she is and be submissive to her husband both. It is thanks to feminism that the way Maddy lives is a choice, not an inalienable condition of her femininity. It is thanks to the success of that intermediate political step of "identity politics," which temporarily elided differences between individuals, that women truly have the possibility to explore and fulfill our differences as individuals. If we are past that intermediate step, to the point where "feminist" has become for some a limiting label, that means that feminism has won.

As for me, I love and respect my husband. Without its being explicit, he is pretty much to head of the house and I defer to him on most things.

With all due respect,
Lemony Snicket

Men may be (generally - there are plenty of exceptions) bigger, stronger and faster, but if you can get in close enough, they do have a built in "stop" function - you just have to hit it hard enough. I'm sure genitals that easily reachable do give some genetic advantage... but it has disadvantages too.

Of course, the inbuilt genetic "advantage" of not getting pregnant would mean the human race would have been pretty short-lived if we women didn't have that genetic "disadvantage".

However, in discussions of equality between men and women, it tends to be in terms of rights etc, not biology.

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

Of course men and women aren't equal, no more than oranges and apples are equal. But equality under the law is about ignoring physical differences such as sex and race. It is more to do with the right to work at an equal rate of pay, have a share of family property, equal access to education etc.

It is not true that a man can spank a woman if he likes. I once held a brown belt in karate and even though I haven't trained for years, there are many men who could not get close to me if I didn't want them to. MB also did years of Tae Kwon Do so we are pretty evenly matched.

Not all men are John Wayne. Not all women are diminuitive and physically helpless.

I have a friend whose husband has a physical handicap. That neither diminishes her respect for him nor makes her feel she can be the boss. They have a very balanced relationship in terms of who calls the shots.

An equal voice in a society and a relationship should not be based on who is the most physically and financially powerful. Otherwise people who don't own their own homes would forfeit the right to vote on local matters. People with physical handicaps would not be allowed in university.

In case I am misunderstood, I do not mean to suggest that being dimunitive and physically helpless are one and the same thing, either in women or in men.

I spent far too many hours training with a third degree black belt who was just over 5 ft tall, of slight build, and faster than a hummingbird with her punches and take downs to ever again confuse those two attributes.

But being dimunitive and not trained in self defence can render anyone vulnerable to physical aggression.

Maddy

And if the advantages of being bigger, stronger etc, don't matter, then how come men have been the dominant sex throughout the whole of human history?

I think reproduction is the key issue. As long as women were churning out as many babies as their bodies could bear, they didn't have much chance to gather wealth or go away to win wars that brought control of countries and resources. They were lucky just to live past the tenth or so child.

Widely available contraception is a relatively new social phenomena. Its full impact won't be measured for another century or so. Not for us to worry about really but neither is the game over. In fact it has barely started.

Add to women's physical disadvantage all the male-dominated religions that forbade women from aspiring to even rudimentary equality. Most religions literally threatened death to dissenters (either by direct sentence a la Joan of Arc or by ostracism which precipitated slow death by starvation). It's amazing women have progressed as much as they have. Sadly in many countries of the world women face those penalties still.

I like to think just because things were one way in the past doesn't mean they will be that way in the future as well. God help us all if we haven't learnt something from the mistakes that went before.

In the meantime black belts, like a good education or a strong skill base, are an equaliser of a sort - but only for those hard-working and perseverant enough to get them.

Maddy (who talks bravely but now is wanted in the other room and daren't say no - at least to this particular man )

When it comes to stupidity women can be every bit as dumb as men. It isn't a quality that comes only in the absence of the y-chromosome.

Most 5 ft 2 in applicants wouldn't pass the fire fighter's physical so I am unsure how such a person ever got into a position of being able to demand special consideration. I'd hate to think of her trying to drag an unconcious body to safety. OTOH should a 6 ft tall, physically competent woman be denied this role because some women are physically unfit to do it? Gee what if we applied that rule to men? There'd be no fire fighters at all.

As to the heart surgeon - I would say that in knowing her limitations and not operating on children she probably was protecting their lives, not putting them at risk. Unlike some men who will, because of their bravado, not admit their own misgivings and charge through when they should be re-thinking their competency in that situation.

Emotional intelligence should be considered a gift, not a shortcoming.

Lots of men are liabilities to their professions but that sure doesn't mean they step down when they should. What about all the pedophiles in the Catholic and Anglican churches? Has anyone said this proves that men are no use to that calling?

I've been misdiagnosed by male medical practitioners. I've dealt with male lawyers whose contracts were so bad that I've had to re-draft them. I've had at least two different male dentists do appalling work on my teeth, work which was subsequently corrected by a female dentist.

Being incompetent and/or irrational are not an exclusively female traits.

I am unsure what 'total chaos' is being brought about by the advancement of women's rights, other than the fact that feminism is a catchword that is often used to simplify complex social issues.

I agree that change is difficult to assimilate. Always has been.

There were people to whom the notion of a new world was unthinkable because everyone knew that earth was flat. Some people thought the motor car would never catch on. Others thought computers would never be used much outside of government.

But chaos from equal rights under the law?

Give women the vote and we end up with WWII, polio, and McCarthyism? Give them equal opportunity to employment and education and we get SARS, mad cow disease, and war in Iraq? Maybe you've got something there.......

Maddy (a volunteer fire fighter on her husband's team)

I used to work in the revenue department of the federal government. I worked alongside three people whose special needs had been accommodated. They were all legally blind and came to work on public transport with their guide dogs.

Other than being unable to see, they were fully competent inquiry clerks who could read and interpret tax law and administration very accurately and effectively. The government had accommodated their needs with specially designed workstations and equipment.

We also had a paraplegic in the department and the loos were the modern type, modified to his needs.

I wouldn't want any of these people to show up to help at the front line of a fire but I had no argument with special considerations being made to help them become productive members of the community. Much better than giving them the dole to stay at home.

So if special modifications are made to enable some women to do jobs that were traditionally handled by men, to me it's just a parallel situation.

Your sons wouldn't be at risk with that surgeon because she obviously has removed herself from that situation. OTOH our friends have a dear eleven year son whose dedicated female brain surgeon has given him his health back and restored their family harmony. My sister's life was ruined for a while by an incompetent male physician whose sloppy prescribing of pharmaceuticals almost killed her.

It works both ways.

I have no interest in being a soldier or a front line fire fighter but I know women who have. If they are not capable of discharing their duties within a reasonable, univeral framework then I agree with you, they - and all applicants of substandard ability - should not be allowed to proceed in the positions they seek.

Maggie

Men took the jobs that women showed, as a whole, a better aptitude for, defined them as unpayable "women's work" and created a class of dependents.

Now let's think about it: who is more valuable to society really, a mother or a caregiver to an elderly person, or the jokers who run around kicking a ball and making millions?

Please.

In any case I don't measure whether men and women are equal based on their salaries or physical strength. You can build those arguments so that they are stacked either way. Women live longer, are less likely to come down with many major illnesses that carry those big strong men off, and aren't as vulnerable to addictions either. Me, I'd rather live longer than be able to heft a 100 lb. item of furniture. We have our strengths and our weaknesses and neither sex comes out fully ahead. We are not equivalent one for one down the checklist of ways in which men and women can be different or the same, but we are all human and we are equal: we deserve equal respect.

Various thoughts on this that I've come across - men fearing women - for their ability to bring forth children, to bleed semi-regularly without much ill effect, and later on for their attractiveness to men and their mystical powers...

Also, in the West, the main religions seem to be very male dominated, something which doesn't seem to be all that recent a thing.

As for strength/size - I suspect that mattered more when you were hunting wild animals at fairly close range, or when fights were more up close and personal than they are now. Most men would have an advantage in those areas over most women - especially as the women could be having to deal with children at any given time (note: most, not all.)

As for wanting B to be dominant, well, I certainly don't think he's superior to me. He has strengths that complement my weaknesses, and vice versa. I don't usually do decision making very well when it involves people I care about, B doesn't do planning very well once a decision has been made. Consequently, unless it's something I feel very strongly about, B makes the decision, I plan it. (OK - technically, even if it's something I feel strongly about, he makes the decision. But as it tends to be the exception rather than the rule for me to feel like, he tends to agree with it.)

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

First let's recognize most if not all of us are on this site because we consider women naturally submissive to men and we find it a condition that we enjoy and want to relish and explore. Then we might also agree that most of the population on both sides embrace some aspects of this concept as acceptable and normal, for various motives and reasons. But if we raise the issue to the only meaningful level, the spiritual plane of exsistance where we all ultimately eminate from, it is clear that neither the historical perspectives of this world of twisted motivations nor the masculine/submissive dynamic itself, determine equality in terms of value, worth, ability, importance or whatever yardstick you can think of. Equality does exist where it matters and frankly it can't be logically disputed. Besides, where would one be without the other?

Just for fun; If you insist on looking at it on earthly terms I offer this; objectively speaking you men so inclined might want to think twice about taking credit for the brilliant job you've done leading the world so far. We're headed for the cliff, aren't we?

Women as females carry the children and so fullfill that basic earthly role of nurturing. A more encompassing role farther back in history because we all needed it to be!! With diseases and pestilance. It's no small reason we're generally more soft, sensitive, and emotionally driven by hormonal changes. And happily so.... how many among us would wish to be a man when being a woman invariably has it's appealing advantages!)

There's another point, male hormones drive them to be aggresive which naturally translates to public displays of seeking power, leadership, money. We women tend to not be thrilled by those pursuits as our sole validation as beings.

Hey, here's another point. When it comes to living in this physical world, it is a plain simple truth (I believe) that set systems of chain of command work better than everyone voting on everything all the time (for lack of a better way to describe it).

None of this is simple and there are reasons for everything but not necessarily good reasons; it's all about motivation. And being a submissive woman is not incongruant with the fact that we're all equal, because at the most powerful level, we're all the same. Your new friend, Trisha

Maddy, your position is essential to this website and has made at least one reader feel she may be able to reconcile her public persona, political stance, and self perception with this deep need to be takeninhand by her husband. Please write more and know you have a readership out here who "gets it". Your writing is thought provoking and has impelled me to rework my definition of feminism to a truer thesis. Thank you!

Cecilia

While feminism may have been responsible for some good in the past (and this is debatable - there may be other causes for the good changes attributed to feminism) I have a low opinion of its current form. I frequently encounter anti-male attitudes that have been engendered by feminism. I am surrounded by media portrayals of men as doltish fathers or potential rapists and abusers. I am tired of the lack of respect given to men in this culture.

On a more personal level, feminist propoganda about what I ought to want as a woman delayed my process of self-discovery. I spent years too uncomfortable to face my attraction to male dominance because feminism had convinced me that there was something wrong with it.

Among all the other benefits of having my husband be the head of household, it gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I have rejected feminism.

Life without Feminism, what an horrendous thought!

Throughout this fantastic website, posters have talked about personal choice, each finding there own way, what works for each couple etc etc. CHOICE is what feminism is all about! I'm presuming that the majority of women who visit this website value there ability to choose the man they wanted to submit too. without that, they may have been forced to marry a week man who took thier dominance as a right and not a responsibility and abused that right by being selfish and abusive husbands. And if it wasn't for feminism you then wouldnt have the right to leave that abusive husband.

Sorry, I'm ranting now, but honestly, the thought of living in a society without all the rights that the early feminists fought for, to vote, to get an education and use it, to marry who you choose, to own property, to not be beaten up by your husband at his will, the right to choose when or if you will have children, the right to work and earn an independant living if you choose, or need to.

I am new to this site, and relatively new to recognizing needs that have been inside me all my life. I AM having difficulty reconciling feminism with discipline and a Taken In Hand intimate life. I would like to hear more thoughts about this...I realize it - feminism is all about choice - but in feminism we are supposed to more or less be equal partners, and a man never strikes a woman - nor "should" we desire dominant men who can lead...

Most men in England are happy women have the vote, can own property and are not paid less or treated worse because they are female. That is all feminism is. Interesting men usually want clever interesting successful wives. It's more fun. Much more fun to control someone whose life isn't just scrubbing the floors etc. I have some writings from the 1970s when I was 16 and 17 years old which is quite sweet to read now. I knew I wanted to be controlled in an intimate relationship and I knew I was a feminist and I was trying to reconcile the two. I think I managed it.

India may have had a female PM before England did, but they still have female infanticide, forced marriages, and dowry murders there. The aim of real feminism is equal rights for women. In a country where atrocities like these occur as a matter of routine, it is clear there is still much work to do.

Mrs Thatcher was fond of saying that she was not a feminist, but she would not have been able to become PM, or an MP, or even to vote if it comes to that, if women had not gained the right to do those things before she did any of them. Women struggled to gain those rights in England, as elsewhere.

The fact that some feminists have an extremist agenda does not mean that the efforts of real feminists to obtain equal rights for women are invalid.

Besides, even avowed non-feminists can do a little male-bashing now and again. Alice Thomas Ellis, for instance, was vehemently anti-feminist, but she said that her reason for not being a feminist was that she did not esteem men greatly, and therefore had no wish to emulate them.

Louise