Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Female led society
#1
A lot of you talk about wanting to live in a world controlled by Females, but have you really thought about what that will involve for you, and also have you given any thought about how you would feel if a lot of your freedoms and privileges were taken away from you.
There are many Women in the world today, who live in poverty, are regularly beaten, suffer rape and horrific attacks with acid. I could go on. This is what a Male led society looks like in some parts of the world. Do you really want to live in a reverse of this world? 
Personally I would rather fight for a world were everyone is treated with respect, and has the same freedoms and liberties that I enjoy, rather than face persecution because they had the misfortune to be born as a Girl.
I apologise if this is on the heavy side, but I am just trying to understand what people mean when they say they want to live in a world controlled by Women. Almost all the comments regarding this subject are about wearing short skirts and being groped (my views on this subject are known), but no substance about what it will really involve, and would you really want to give up a comfortable life, with your privileges to become a second class citizen.
I would also like to think if Women ran the world, there would be a lot more compassion about and people would be treated more fairly.
Maitresse Yvette-Louise
Reply
#2
(08-31-2017, 03:22 PM)Yvette-Louise Wrote: A lot of you talk about wanting to live in a world controlled by Females, but have you really thought about what that will involve for you, and also have you given any thought about how you would feel if a lot of your freedoms and privileges were taken away from you.
There are many Women in the world today, who live in poverty, are regularly beaten, suffer rape and horrific attacks with acid. I could go on. This is what a Male led society looks like in some parts of the world. Do you really want to live in a reverse of this world? 
Personally I would rather fight for a world were everyone is treated with respect, and has the same freedoms and liberties that I enjoy, rather than face persecution because they had the misfortune to be born as a Girl.
I apologise if this is on the heavy side, but I am just trying to understand what people mean when they say they want to live in a world controlled by Women. Almost all the comments regarding this subject are about wearing short skirts and being grouped (my views on this subject are known), but no substance about what it will really involve, and would you really want to give up a comfortable life, with your privileges to become a second class citizen.
I would also like to think if Women ran the world, there would be a lot more compassion about and people would be treated more fairly.

Well I think that is a great topic, but the answer is so hard to say and put into words to understand. I just know I am of a submissive nature as far back as I can remember. It was 13 or 14 years ago, when I actually bought my first computer. That is when I started to learn there is a language for a D/s lifestyle. I read and learn about such every day since then, or almost everyday. Then I found Aunt Helga's site. Petticoat discipline, and I would always look forward to reading each months new edition.
The embarrassing truth is that I was a virgin until age 37 years old. Mostly because I was always very shy, and I did have lousy male friends always wanting to hang out with me. I always wish some woman could had picked me up and taught me to be hers. I most certainly believe I have limits, but I always depend on some one to help act as my communicator. For me to obey my Mistress is because I trust her to take care of me with out hurting me. I want to surrender myself to her as much as possible as a gift. I want unconditional love in return. I want my wife/Mistress to protect me. For example my wife knows how to talk and communicate very well, and I am always easy going and easy to take advantage of. That is why I use to have lousy friends, I much prefer a dominant female partner to have me.
Reply
#3
Good morning Miss Yvette-Louise,

You make a very compelling point in your post, Ma'am. I believe this is where "the line of sanity" is drawn between "fantasy" and "reality". FLR is a personal matter between a couple or a small group in some cases, and is likely not possible for society as a whole...and in my ideal world, FLR is best practiced in a loving, personal relationship, or at least is a civil and mutually respectful relationship as opposed to societal expectations/institutional norms.

The concept of the "Dominant Wife" and the "submissive sissy" as practiced in Your home (as well as my Wife's) works for marital harmony and matches the personalities of the parties involved. I do believe that there are more couples today practicing this lifestyle than we can possibly know...and I know that's a good thing. And, for the couple practicing this lifestyle, there is little concept of "equality" in the home, but most often, I believe...the sissy has feelings of safety, security and the fundamental rights of a human.

The atrocities You describe (rape, poverty, abuse, attacks) should not be visited on any human, female or male at any time...respect and dignity for the human is paramount!

Most respectfully,

sissy jameanne
Reply
#4
I worked in a service industry job for many years, and was robbed, shot at, spat upon, cursed, assaulted, threatened, cheated, and even choked. All by men, never once by a woman. The worst a woman ever did is raise her voice to me.

The reason why women suffer indignities is because men are violent. Of course, I generalize, perhaps too bluntly. There are inspirational and horrible people in both genders. But men are responsible for the overwhelming majority of crime and suffering in the world.

I would suggest reading some of Julie Wilson's posts, as well as researching some of Elise Sutton's and Lady Misato's writings. Also read some of June Stephenson's books, including "Men are Not Cost Effective".

There is a very big difference between aspiring to be a good servant, and being robbed of human rights. Also a very big difference between receiving gratification from servitude, and being involuntarily enslaved.

A good metaphor is to look at the cosplay/crossdress cafes in Japan. A society that values good service is far more tolerant of men, dressing as women, and lavishly heaping service on a client than our own.

Another is to consider how popular culture values women exploring their sexuality ("Blue is the Warmest Color") and being overtly submissive ("The Story of O", "Secretary", "50 Shades of Grey"). We are far more tolerant of women who are approval-seekers and eager to please than men in the same role.
Subcultures based on obedience and discipline are not counter to human nature (consider the military and extreme sports).

I had very submissive feelings toward women even as a very small child, and was always the most comfortable when surrounded by smart, powerful women. I was never bullied, physically intimidated, or made to be competitive (or feel inadequate) in such a situation.

Certainly, I believe in human flourishing, and value my personal freedom and ability to pursue my interests. But I would also like a social structure that does not equate submission and service with a lack of aptitude and the absence of success. I would also like to see men have more freedom to experience the sensory experiences of beauty.

A world run by women might be harsh toward aggressive men, and perhaps do things like tax single men heavily, and be tolerant of things like groping, corporal punishment, and rape prevention (chastity). And men might be banned from certain positions where greed and corruption would cause human suffering (high level politics, CEO, investment banker). But men who provide good service would be valued for their support roles, and I think they would aspire to this role, with good, widespread support and reinforcement.

About 40 years ago, I went shopping in a boutique near Philadelphia that advertised itself as welcoming crossdressers. Inside, as saleswomen, were two of the most graceful, beautiful women I have ever seen. They were perfectly made up and coiffed, and both wore silky blouses with short, tight skirts, nylons, and stiletto heels. Long nails, perfect jewelry, no detail was overlooked. Just seeing them so gracefully exert their ownership of the store, watching them so effortlessly prance around in heels, surrounded by beauty and softness, was inspirational. They were both painted dolls and dominatrices at the same time. Men have no equivalent experience. Men can't be affectionate, coy, doting, and flirty the way women can.

Many of us derive pleasure from humiliation, objectification, masochism, and activities like pegging. My wife made me do the housework nude, caned and pegged me every other Friday night, billed me for most of the household expenses, and made all the major decisions, and I never complained a bit. She didn't really like me crossdressing, but once every other month gave me a girl day when she was out with her friends. I would like to see that sort of a lifestyle become more socially acceptable, and I would like to see women take the lead, and benefit from it.

Here is a quote from today's New York Times arts page:

"I mean, I think women are foolish to pretend they’re equal to men — they’re far superior and always have been". William Golding, author of Lord of the Flies, in a 1993 interview.
Reply
#5
(09-01-2017, 10:21 PM)Conway Wrote: I worked in a service industry job for many years, and was robbed, shot at, spat upon, cursed, assaulted, threatened, cheated, and even choked. All by men, never once by a woman. The worst a woman ever did is raise her voice to me.

The reason why women suffer indignities is because men are violent. Of course, I generalize, perhaps too bluntly. There are inspirational and horrible people in both genders. But men are responsible for the overwhelming majority of crime and suffering in the world.

I would suggest reading some of Julie Wilson's posts, as well as researching some of Elise Sutton's and Lady Misato's writings. Also read some of June Stephenson's books, including "Men are Not Cost Effective".

There is a very big difference between aspiring to be a good servant, and being robbed of human rights. Also a very big difference between receiving gratification from servitude, and being involuntarily enslaved.

A good metaphor is to look at the cosplay/crossdress cafes in Japan. A society that values good service is far more tolerant of men, dressing as women, and lavishly heaping service on a client than our own.

Another is to consider how popular culture values women exploring their sexuality ("Blue is the Warmest Color") and being overtly submissive ("The Story of O", "Secretary", "50 Shades of Grey").  We are far more tolerant of women who are approval-seekers and eager to please than men in the same role.
Subcultures based on obedience and discipline are not counter to human nature (consider the military and extreme sports).

I had very submissive feelings toward women even as a very small child, and was always the most comfortable when surrounded by smart, powerful women. I was never bullied, physically intimidated, or made to be competitive (or feel inadequate) in such a situation.

Certainly, I believe in human flourishing, and value my personal freedom and ability to pursue my interests. But I would also like a social structure that does not equate submission and service with a lack of aptitude and the absence of success. I would also like to see men have more freedom to experience the sensory experiences of beauty.

A world run by women might be harsh toward aggressive men, and perhaps do things like tax single men heavily, and be tolerant of things like groping, corporal punishment, and rape prevention (chastity). And men might be banned from certain positions where greed and corruption would cause human suffering (high level politics, CEO, investment banker). But men who provide good service would be valued for their support roles, and I think they would aspire to this role, with good, widespread support and reinforcement.

About 40 years ago, I went shopping in a boutique near Philadelphia that advertised itself as welcoming crossdressers. Inside, as saleswomen, were two of the most graceful, beautiful women I have ever seen. They were perfectly made up and coiffed, and both wore silky blouses with short, tight skirts, nylons, and stiletto heels. Long nails, perfect jewelry, no detail was overlooked. Just seeing them so gracefully exert their ownership of the store, watching them so effortlessly prance around in heels, surrounded by beauty and softness, was inspirational. They were both painted dolls and dominatrices at the same time. Men have no equivalent experience. Men can't be affectionate, coy, doting, and flirty the way women can.

Many of us derive pleasure from humiliation, objectification, masochism, and activities like pegging. My wife made me do the housework nude, caned and pegged me every other Friday night, billed me for most of the household expenses, and made all the major decisions, and I never complained a bit. She didn't really like me crossdressing, but once every other month gave me a girl day when she was out with her friends. I would like to see that sort of a lifestyle become more socially acceptable, and I would like to see women take the lead, and benefit from it.

Here is a quote from today's New York Times arts page:

"I mean, I think women are foolish to pretend they’re equal to men — they’re far superior and always have been". William Golding, author of Lord of the Flies, in a 1993 interview
Very nicely stated Conway.  You present and defend some very valid points...enjoyed reading this!
Reply
#6
(09-01-2017, 10:21 PM)Conway Wrote: Conway's post on this thread was exceptional. He said things I want to say. More! More!
Your obedient forum maid,

ModeratorM Cool
Reply
#7
Thank you for posting this Yvette Louise, you touch on some very interesting and thought provoking points but you need not apologise for being on the heavy side, it needed to be said. In many parts of the world women are not just "second class" citizens but are horribly treated by men for their own use and as justification for archaic religious practices. Many news stories I have read turn my stomach at such cruelty yet it goes on without any repercussions simply because it has been that way for countless centuries. Like you I believe if women ruled the world there would be more compassion because females are compassionate to begin with and nurturing is in their genes. Still it is good that there are strong females who won't be taken in by manipulative men as well as females who prefer submissive partners, variety is the spice of life as they say. I have always believed my feminization has made me a better person, it's not just about dressing up but the outings I have had have given me first hand experiences of some of the fears women have when being followed on a dark street. I know it's not nearly the same but it makes you realize women don't have it as easy as so many imagine just because you get to wear pretty things. Many of us wish we had been born a girl but I wonder how many would want to have been born in impoverished Africa or in the Middle East where women are property.
Reply
#8
Here is a recent opinion piece from the New York Times:


Matt Lauer, like Charlie Rose and Mark Halperin before him, is a journalist out of a job after his employer fired him for sexually harassing female colleagues. It’s good news that real penalties are now leveled on men who harass — after centuries of the costs mostly befalling the women who endure harassment. But the deep cultural rot that has corroded nearly all of our institutions and every corner of our culture is not just about a few badly behaved men. Sexual harassment, and the sexism it’s predicated on, involves more than the harassers and the harassed; when the harassers are men with loud microphones, their private misogyny has wide-reaching public consequences. One of the most significant: the 2016 election.

Many of the male journalists who stand accused of sexual harassment were on the forefront of covering the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Matt Lauer interviewed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump in an official “commander-in-chief forum” for NBC. He notoriously peppered and interrupted Mrs. Clinton with cold, aggressive, condescending questions hyper-focused on her emails, only to pitch softballs at Mr. Trump and treat him with gentle collegiality a half-hour later. Mark Halperin and Charlie Rose set much of the televised political discourse on the race, interviewing other pundits, opining themselves and obsessing over the electoral play-by-play. Mr. Rose, after the election, took a tone similar to Mr. Lauer’s with Mrs. Clinton — talking down to her, interrupting her, portraying her as untrustworthy. Mr. Halperin was a harsh critic of Mrs. Clinton, painting her as ruthless and corrupt, while going surprisingly easy on Mr. Trump. The reporter Glenn Thrush, currently on leave from The New York Times because of sexual harassment allegations, covered Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign when he was at Newsday and continued to write about her over the next eight years for Politico.



A pervasive theme of all of these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton was that she was dishonest and unlikable. These recent harassment allegations suggest that perhaps the problem wasn’t that Mrs. Clinton was untruthful or inherently hard to connect with, but that these particular men hold deep biases against women who seek power instead of sticking to acquiescent sex-object status.

A month ago, Rebecca Traister wrote in New York magazine that with the flood of sexual harassment charges, “we see that the men who have had the power to abuse women’s bodies and psyches throughout their careers are in many cases also the ones in charge of our political and cultural stories.” With the Lauer accusations, this observation has come into sharper focus on one particular picture: the media sexism that contributed to Hillary Clinton’s loss.
The 2016 presidential race was so close that any of a half-dozen factors surely influenced the outcome: James Comey, racial politics, Clinton family baggage, the contentious Democratic primary, third-party spoilers, Russian interference, fake news. But when one of the best-qualified candidates for the presidency in American history and the first woman to get close to the Oval Office loses to an opponent who had not dedicated a nanosecond of his life to public service and ran a blatantly misogynist campaign, it’s hard to conclude that gender didn’t play a role.

[Image: jill-filipovic-blogSmallThumb.jpg]
Jill Filipovic
Politics, gender and law.


For arguing that gender shaped the election narrative and its result, feminists have been pooh-poohed, simultaneously told that it was Clinton, not her gender, that was the problem and that her female supporters were voting with their vaginas instead of their brains.

The latest harassment and assault allegations complicate that account and suggest that perhaps many of the high-profile media men covering Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump were the ones leading with their genitals. Mr. Trump was notoriously accused of multiple acts of sexual harassment and assault, and was caught on tape bragging about his proclivity for grabbing women. That several of the men covering the race — shaping the way American voters understood the candidates and what was at stake — were apparently behaving in similarly appalling ways off-camera calls into question not just their objectivity but also their ability to cover the story with the seriousness and urgency it demanded.


Sexual harassment at the hands of political journalists also pulls back the curtain on how too many of these men view women generally. The journalists in question are accused of a range of behaviors, some more serious than others, from drunken unsolicited kisses to, in Mr. Lauer’s case, sexual assault (in addition to exposing himself to a colleague and sending another a sex toy with a note detailing how he would like to use it on her). The theme running through nearly all of the complaints is a man in a position of power who saw the women around him not as competent colleagues or as even sovereign human beings, but as sexual objects he could either proposition to boost his ego or humiliate to feed a desire for domination.


It’s hard to look at these men’s coverage of Mrs. Clinton and not see glimmers of that same simmering disrespect and impulse to keep women in a subordinate place. When men turn some women into sexual objects, the women who are inside that box are one-dimensional, while those outside of it become disposable; the ones who refuse to be disposed of, who continue to insist on being seen and heard, are inconvenient and pitiable at best, deceitful shrews and crazy harpies at worst. That’s exactly how some commentary and news coverage treated Mrs. Clinton.


This has ripple effects for all women. Men are assumed to fail or succeed based on merit; they are mentored and supported by more senior men, and no one bats an eye. Young women, though, are often treated as suspect if more senior men take an interest in them (and too often, more senior men’s interests are suspect indeed, but it’s women’s reputations that suffer the stigma of being thought to sleep or flirt their way to the top rather than earning their perches).


When men see women as sex objects first and colleagues second, their actual talents, skills and smarts are easily overlooked. A boss who harasses the woman in the cubicle next to you may not be sexually coercing you or torpedoing your career, but his actions signal that he does not see women as competent co-workers entitled to a rewarding and effective workplace.


Some commentators, most notably Geraldo Rivera, have written some acts of harassment off as courtship gone awry. This is truly bizarre, and it illustrates just how tied we are to the idea that women are inherently inviting sexual aggression and that men are inherently sexually voracious and socially clueless. Women, and most men, know that courtship doesn’t typically take the form of unwanted grabbing or unsolicited indecent exposure. (“Mommy and Daddy fell in love the day Daddy called Mommy into his office and began vigorously masturbating at her” is not exactly a meet-cute story.)


This moment isn’t about a nation of confused men. It’s about a minority of men who choose to treat women alternately as walking sex objects or bothersome and potentially devious nags. It’s about a majority of Americans who give men a pass for all manner of bad behavior, because they assume men are entitled to behave badly but hold women to an entirely different standard.
That is why it’s so egregious that sexual harassers set the tone of much of the coverage of the woman who hoped to be the first female president.


These “Crooked Hillary” narratives pushed by Mr. Lauer, Mr. Halperin, and a long list of other prominent journalists and pundits indelibly shaped the election, and were themselves gendered: Hillary Clinton as a cackling witch, Hillary Clinton a woman it was easy to distrust because she was also a woman seeking power, and what kind of woman does that? Mr. Trump emphasized this caricature as part of his more broadly sexist campaign, but he didn’t invent it. Nor was he the only famous man going on television to perpetuate it — while revealing a deep disdain for women when the cameras weren’t rolling.


This story has been updated to clarify a characterization of campaign coverage.


Jill Filipovic is the author of “The H Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness” and a contributing opinion writer.
Reply
#9
(12-02-2017, 07:21 PM)Julie Wilson Wrote: When men see women as sex objects first and colleagues second, their actual talents, skills and smarts are easily overlooked. A boss who harasses the woman in the cubicle next to you may not be sexually coercing you or torpedoing your career, but his actions signal that he does not see women as competent co-workers entitled to a rewarding and effective workplace.

The problem of sexual harrassment of women in the work place could be easily solved by petticoating. Force all male employees to wear a skirt suit, stockings and high heels, they simply cannot act as macho males and will not sexually harass women. They will probably even be submissive and obedient towards their female co-workers. 

*curtsey*
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Petticoat Discipline Quarterly

Focus MyBB Theme is designed for MyBB 1.8 series and is tested properly till the most current version of MyBB i.e. 1.8.7. It is simple, clean and light MyBB theme with use of font-awesome icons and shrinking header.

For any more information, please use our contact form.

              User Links