The Extreme End of the Collaborationist Spectrum
The following blog, right here on good ol' Blogspot, is instructive as an object lesson. Abject servility toward women, elliptically preached by the likes of Schwyzer and company, is here nakedly flaunted in its authentic blazing colors, minus the fuzzy curtain of sophistical double-talk and academic hocus-pocus. This guy lays it on the line for all the world to see - the occult paradigm of female supremacism; the psychic center of gravity; the moral axis of the vortex. Witness:
http://submissivemale.blogspot.com/
I'll give the dude credit for two things: he's up front about what he is, and he doesn't appear to make his personal oddness the foundation for any political agenda.
"Service and submission to women - as I see it - is not about sex or male desire - it's about coming to terms with the natural order of gender: women were meant to rule and [be] dutifully served by men - their devoted servants and protectors."
http://submissivemale.blogspot.com/
I'll give the dude credit for two things: he's up front about what he is, and he doesn't appear to make his personal oddness the foundation for any political agenda.
posted by Fidelbogen at 5:37 PM
7 Comments:
I think you may have misinterpreted the site slightly as I think it has more to do with BDSM rather than feminism.
I am a MRA and I have to say that although my initial response to the site was to think "collaborator", reading it more closely [for example the post about 'chastity']made me realise that it is nothing more than a mild S&M blog and no real threat to the MRA movement. Also, the fact that he uses the term 'femdom' [a term mainly used within BDSM] rather than 'feminism' is further evidence that it is more about S&M than anything else.
I agree almost 100% with your remarks, so I'm not sure I misinterpreted the site...
Yes, what we see there is just a mild bit of BDSM. My point, however, was that it illustrates the logical endpoint of "pro-feminist" male psychology. For example, a person such as Schwyzer is a milder form of this "mild bit", if you follow me...
It's all about the psychological continuum, and the larger forces pushing men (in general) toward a servile, second-class status vis a vis women (in general).
As for the blog owner in question, I find it hard to believe that such a person is unaware of feminism and has not at some point formed an opinion on the subject. Even if he doesn't talk about it directly..
I've said it before: There is more to feminism than feminism.
I don't know, guys. Reading the comments, they really are talking about female dominated marriages. Totally and completely dominated in daily life and chores and everything else, not just sex stuff. Wives who leave lists of chores on the refrigerator and don't allow them to allow watching TV if the chores aren't done. Like little kids, not husbands.and, the husbands are actually asking for this.
Sick!!!
As the writer of the comment in question, I can whole heartedly say I am nothing more than a submissive male who seeks service, obedience and submission to one woman. I'm not interested in pain, humiliation, violence or sex games.
Male submission to me is not necessarily something I go to a professional dominatrix to 'work out.' Some men [self included] are simply submissive oriented towards women. I have written about feminism and it pertains to male submission - and, as usual, the comments are mostly ignored by women and men. Too bad.
-john
Well regarding the "visual decoration" of iobey's blog I find it difficult to believe he's not interested in "humiliation or sex games"... but that's not my point:
I'm fairly tolerant when it comes to BDSM, as long as it's clear it's a mere consensual game for adults. The difficulties arise (and I think the mentioned blog is a prime example) when BDSM gets turned into a philosophy about life in general and a religion to be followed 24 hrs a day. I think that's the result of a weird justification process going on: Some people, feeling insecure about how to integrate a BDSM taste into their picture of themselves, build a whole "justification philosophy" around this issue. Then they surface from their bubble, stating in earnest all men should submit to the supreme female mother goddess inherent in all women. The validity of that philosophy gets immediately nullified by the equal amount of women seeking nothing but submission to their fairy-tale prince in a BDSM dream relationship - which is, of course, equally over-the-top.
And what we end up with is an innumerable amount of websites/blogs by BDSM hobby philosophers, polluting and claiming ownership to the same vocabulary the MRA movement tries to use for pointing to serious issues within our Western societies: For example, MRA's call feminism a "female supremacist" movement in the hope that there's a consensus that supremacy of any kind is always a wrong thing to engage in.
It is unfortunate that on the other hand, within the BDSM world there are men who perceive the same term in a positive context, because it's part of the theater prop that make their heads bow and their d*cks grow (sorry).
It's a difficult world we live in. Maybe it'd be better to name feminism a "female arrogance" movement, because (I hope) arrogance is a word that can't be misused for role-playing purposes. Calling feminism a "female superiority hate movement" would be of no use, because that'd lead into the same already muddled waters.
Well, actually, the words "supremacy" and "supremacist" are pretty well established in the broader political lexicon. Their recognition index is high enough at least among people who discourse of things political and historical, that I feel confident the term "female supremacism" can be employed in an MRA context without risk of misunderstanding.
As for "naturally submissive males", it is not entirely clear (to me) what separates them (in a purely psychological sense) from the mangina-collaborationist crowd who have internalized the feminist ideological paradigm and wish to proselytize other males along that line.
I think the difference is that the so-called "naturally submissive males" don't originate from the "feminist ideological" spectrum: At some point these men just noticed that bossy women turn them on sexually. Because they're baffled to find something like that to be the case, they feel the need of constructing an all-encompassing philosophy about women being naturally superior to men, just to feel at peace with themselves again. It's easy - if they succeed in convincing themselves that the way they feel is just the natural order of things, they don't have to feel worried anymore about their sexual preferences.
So the sub males' vocabulary may look the same, but they come from a different starting point than the political-active male feminists (who don't see they're playing for the wrong team, but nevertheless sometimes do so from a sincere wish to be of help to society).
In a psychological sense, I'd even say the "submissive" men come from an entirely egotistical starting point. After all, if someone takes his sexual preference, blows it up to proportions that fill 24 hours a day (and de-sexualizes parts of it again for not making it look too ridiculous), isn't that the epitome of self-centredness...?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home