What about femdom?
-
That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument.
There are plenty of people who seem to have skipped basic history and are perfectly happy to suck up to the next "strongman" leader.
And once again, someone is missing the point between fantasy and reality.
But let's say you are right, then my point is wrong. It was a response to the femdom claim.
-
Didn't you know?
If you say "sea cucumber" capitalists stop oppressing you. It's our safe word.
Oh thanks! Sea cucumber!
-
The original statement is weird to me. Lots of people renounce agency, for example to exempt themselves from responsibility.
I have a capable boss, I gladly leave the responsibility of many decisions to him because I trust he's better than me when it comes to that.
I just want to point out that trusting in someone's competency and leaving certain work for them as you think they are better suited for the work... that is just no Hierarchy.
Let's say, we have a man and a woman. They have babies and the babies seem to be able to fall asleep better to the song of the man's deeper voice. The woman decides that she will let her husband put the children to sleep if possible. Did the woman submit to the hierarchy and her husband, or is she just efficient?
-
I just want to point out that trusting in someone's competency and leaving certain work for them as you think they are better suited for the work... that is just no Hierarchy.
Let's say, we have a man and a woman. They have babies and the babies seem to be able to fall asleep better to the song of the man's deeper voice. The woman decides that she will let her husband put the children to sleep if possible. Did the woman submit to the hierarchy and her husband, or is she just efficient?
Having a boss is a good indicator that it's a hierarchy though, friend
-
I just want to point out that trusting in someone's competency and leaving certain work for them as you think they are better suited for the work... that is just no Hierarchy.
Let's say, we have a man and a woman. They have babies and the babies seem to be able to fall asleep better to the song of the man's deeper voice. The woman decides that she will let her husband put the children to sleep if possible. Did the woman submit to the hierarchy and her husband, or is she just efficient?
My boss (as in team leader, not employer) has earned the position by demonstrating better insight, and has the power to force me into tasks I disagree with. So yes it's a hierarchy, an ideal one in this case as the positions are assigned on merit, but even if it wasn't I'd still have the choice to submit to it, to avoid responsibilities or unpleasant tasks.
-
The response is easy and obvious.
Femdom is not a real hierarchy. It is a role play. That is why there is aftercare and stuff. To separate daily life and reality from role play.
Like there should be a safe word that ends the role play. There is no "nvm let's not" button in a real hierarchy.
What about lifestyle femdom?
-
The response is easy and obvious.
Femdom is not a real hierarchy. It is a role play. That is why there is aftercare and stuff. To separate daily life and reality from role play.
Like there should be a safe word that ends the role play. There is no "nvm let's not" button in a real hierarchy.
While yes, the key thing is that at any point either party can say "nope no longer wanna do this", it's still a hierarchy, but it is mutually agreed upon. (Also, in reality, the sub has the ultimate control in bdsm because of the safe word, and if they don't something is very wrong)
Static unchangable hierarchies are what no one enters voluntarily (at the low end that is).
Even outside of bdsm, it can make perfect sense to establish a hierarchy for e.g. faster response times, or because one person is far more knowledgable about something. It's just important that the people on the lower end can always end it.
-
The original statement is weird to me. Lots of people renounce agency, for example to exempt themselves from responsibility.
I have a capable boss, I gladly leave the responsibility of many decisions to him because I trust he's better than me when it comes to that.
Ssssh! Or you'll anger the anarchists!
-
One problem with hierarchies is the potential for abuse, now your boss is competent, but tomorrow your next boss may not be and then there is a problem. At the very least even a competent person makes mistakes.
And that is all assuming your boss became your boss due to merits and not something like "my father owns the business"(been there, was asked to write mobile app in Haskell).
Some people seems to don't give a damn about that and happily plod away under good, bad, horrible bosses. Not changing work, not regretting, no nothing. So that it doesn't exist, excluding femdom, is just not true.
-
My boss (as in team leader, not employer) has earned the position by demonstrating better insight, and has the power to force me into tasks I disagree with. So yes it's a hierarchy, an ideal one in this case as the positions are assigned on merit, but even if it wasn't I'd still have the choice to submit to it, to avoid responsibilities or unpleasant tasks.
You are misunderstanding my point.
My point is that letting someone handle certain things and even listening to their advice is not hierarchical.
So the person written the comment doesn't need a hierarchy to let their coworker handle organisational tasks nor do they need it to listening to their coworker's advice.
So just because they like it that way, doesn't mean they like the hierarchy nor that they want it, but rather that they like some tasks more than others and acknowledge expertise.
I am not saying that there is no Hierarchy. I just don't think they want it, just because they like other elements in their cooperation.