Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Dominatrix: Women In Control?

Whoever says that dominatrixes - and the entire genre of women-as-aggressors - are empowered has clearly lost the meaning of feminism (and dude, that's not even the meaning of Feminism). The meaning of feminism is to make the world egalitarian - not to put women in power instead of men.

But let's take a deeper look at this.

Often the same people who claim that the dominatrix road is the way to go for "empowered" women are the same people who will complain about the roles of men and women on TV. That is, they'll complain about how the men are incompetent and how the women are always having to fix things for them or take care of them in some way, and how it makes men look like they're incompetent idiots, and ultimately oppresses men. (I know, I know, stop laughing radfems!)

But, even in a scene, it's the same thing - women having to take care of men. The thing is, the people in the above example have it wrong; it's the women being oppressed. Women have, historically, been made to clean up the messes men have made, in the home, country, and globally, and this is no different.

More than that, though, is the way a dominatrix appears. She is usually in shiny black leather (ignore the speciesism, that's not the point of this post), her breasts pushed out, in heels that make it extremely difficult to walk. Altogether, it is a thoroughly uncomfortable suit. The man may be in any number of outfits, but usually he has much less clothing on him - in fact, in the female-dominant scenes I've seen, he's naked barring a few toys or straps.

So we see that women, again, force themselves into uncomfortable (even if they aren't physically tight, it's certain to be extremely warm), animal-harming, and even physically incapacitating clothes (high heels) to please men. Would anyone dress up in something uncomfortable for themselves? Not often. And this case it's clearly Patriarchal. So why do we give it a free pass?

Because it appears that the woman is in control. But more than the way mentioned above, she's actually not. Take, for example, that the scene usually revolves around the man's pleasure and pain (with M-D/F-S scenarios, it's usually focused on the man's pleasure and the woman's pain) rather than the woman's - I thought feminism was supposed to be, in part, about getting women the pleasure they deserve? Take another example: she has no room to be a "gentle" dominant as men are, she is supposed to be brutal - as women in control have been stereotyped.

She, the dominatrix, is made into the most socially feared kind of man - a female version of "the brutal assaulting male" as Consolidated put it in their song "Typical Male". Society assumes that, when women are put in power, they will be just as, if not more brutal than men. But society eroticises brutality. So what happens? They end up eroticising the brutal dominatrix.

So, in reality, even if a female dominant is less Patriarchal than the male dominant, it's still fucking Patriarchal.

(Typical "I don't like it but I'm not gonna tell you you shouldn't do it" disclaimer applies.)



Menstrually Marked

Latest Month

March 2008