[Gemme]

Actually, I have seen what could be taken as pushiness towards both parties.

HOWEVER

I really think it comes down to communication. I hope she doesn't mind me saying so, but Belle and I continued our conversation from here for a while and, by the end of it, I understood what she was saying much better. I honestly think that that particular viewpoint is definitely valid and is correct.

BUT

I really also think that the other side....the side that says this is what we do....is not being fully heard and understood. I *do* see the push on that side to agree with the other viewpoint and it does feel more 'pushy' than it needs to be.

Both sides are absolutely right. One side is looking at the dynamic from a historical point of view, especially with an election around the corner and the potential for women's rights to go in the tank if that person is elected. I get that. The other side is saying, please let me have my dynamic...my fetish...my kink....my way of loving without jumping on me for it. I get that too. The fallout happened in the communication because I believe that the historical side is not making a judgement on the execution of the dynamic at all; it's the glorifying of that time period, I think, that has so many upset.

It did, initially, feel like the historical importance of the era was being hammered into folks and that's mostly why I spoke my thoughts on the matter. I agree that it's VERY important to see where we've been. It helps to figure out where we're going and how to deal with the current social climate. When I got into this debate I was looking at it like, what I do in my home and bedroom, etc is none of anyone's beeswax, so buzz off. It felt like the dynamic itself was being attacked <--don't like this word but I can't think of another right now.

HOWEVER

I now see that the historical side was addressing the "the 50s were the best time evah" and "the good ole days" comments and so on and so forth. They aren't saying folks can't do what they want to do and live how they want to live. They would just like to not glamourize a time period that was really hurtful to women. I get that!

BUT

In the communication of that point, there were some things said that really put both sides on the defensive. That's when it really ran aground.

So, this is where I stand:

The 50s are romanticized on TV and in the movies as being ideal....as an 'innocent' time. Well, sometimes innocent means ignorant. The government was doing stuff....people were doing stuff....some really shitty stuff....all on the down low. Keeping females in their "place" was not only accepted but expected. Everything "unsightly" was thrust under the rug and keeping up with the Joneses was par for the course. Well, some things haven't changed. We are in a society of bigger is better....material things determine not only our place in the world but our worth as human beings. There is shitty stuff from EVERY era because people will always do shitty things to one another. Humans can be the worst monsters of all, especially to one another.

I think it still comes down to being able to speak your opinion without stepping all over anyone else's and making them choke on it. I do wish some things had been said differently, by both viewpoints.

This black text on a white screen is all we have and that takes a lot of give on all of our parts to get to the core of what is really being said. It's not that each side doesn't see what the other is saying...it's how it's being said, I believe, that is throwing walls up.

Which is what I think Julie is trying to work through...the language of it all.