squirrelfury
Posts: 44
Joined: 8/20/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
|
Female Supremacy: A Manifesto
It is rare that I feel moved to state a solid, intractable opinion on anything worth having an opinion about. I'm apolitical to the extreme, willfully ignorant to the better class of world events, and could care less about whatever topic du jour happens to be setting the media aflame. If you have read my prior journal entries, you'll note that such opinions I do happen to express are light-hearted rants on subjects that may be deemed, at best, as irrelevant. This holds true offline as well, amongst those diverse and sainted folk tolerant enough to amuse themselves with the questionable virtues of my company.
So it's fair to say that I've not set a proper groundwork for expressing a serious opinion, either amongst those I know in person or through association here. You'll therefore forgive me, I hope, if my attempt to do so now is flawed by too little in the way of readability, and too much in the way of inflammability. I can only offer tentative apologies (for the form of expression, but not, of course, for the sentiments embodied therein), and hope you may see your way clear to offering such criticism as you deem fit.
That said, allow me a brief sentence or two on the title of this essay. I chose the term "manifesto" simply because that by definiton, it means "a public statement of opinion", among other things. It is more aggressive of a term than I'd normally use in writing, but that may, I hope, be forgiven by the fact that compared to past efforts, this is more aggressive of a statement than I'm wont to make. That asserted, I shall move on to the subject of this manifesto.
We are, collectively, a diverse crowd. Our tastes, desires, experiences, and so on may safely be said to encompass the gamut of the human experience. From the faintest raspberry-tinged vanilla exploit, to the most lascivious of decadent pursuits, we as a community of the kinky have by tradition been more open-minded than other, larger groups. We know what it is to have tastes that diverge from the mainstream, the socially acceptable, and in some cases, the strictly legal. All this fosters in us (or should, I feel) a tolerance for things which may seem bizarre, silly, and outlandish to those who don't...well, get it.
That said, I have to confess to a feeling of amused disbelief about some practices that fall under the purview of BDSM. In this particular case, I refer to the structure of beliefs and views that surround and add up to the myth of inherent female supremacy.
Now, it may seem odd to some reading this that I, a self-professed male submissive and seemingly natural proponent of the topic, would denounce it, and publically at that. Surely harboring such feelings in such a position is in and of itself an act of betrayal, and I'd best shut right the hell up, smile prettily, and get on with the worshipping of the fairer sex. Isn't there some dusting I could be doing, or something else constructive, rather than wasting time spouting off at the fingertips?
Well, yes, there certainly is. But if you've read this far, then odds are you'll continue on to the end, out of agreement with the views expressed, curiosity as to the reasoning behind them, or simple annoyance or anger at their base nature and contrariness. Regardless of your motive for continuing to read, it justifies my continuing to write, so I'll accord this as a worthwhile use of my unsurprisingly vast amount of free time.
To state the case baldly, female supremacy as a concept just doesn't work.
Allow me to elaborate on that by offering a definition of female supremacy, as it will be the basis of my rebuttal of the whole system. In essence, the foundation of this system is that women are inherently superior to men. That much is made obvious by the name. Women are, by dint of being women, the natural leaders, and that men are thus the natural followers. Under this view, every woman is a potential Dominatrix and has but to step up, toss off the shackles of male oppression and millenia of pro-male psychological conditioning, and claim her natural place in the order of things. Conversely men, as the inferiors, are by their very nature meant to serve, as they have been proven through the ages to be less than wise in their (mis)management of our race, and have only maintained power for so long through the systematic oppression of their feminine counterparts. Indeed, men are happier without the reins in their hands, are more productive when led by women, and will just continue to get up to no end of mischief if allowed to continue unmanaged by the women with their best interests at heart.
Do you see the glaring and blatant flaws here? If you don't, I'll allow you a minute to re-read that last paragraph, and another to reflect on it.
Setting aside the strongest and most obvious point contrary to the above definition for later, allow me to first state that entrenched all throughout that definition is a credo and belief system that was last espoused by proponents of slavery throughout history. I'm not speaking of the a-wink-and-a-nod style of slavery that some enjoy within the bounds of our chosen lifestyle. I'm referring to the systematic subjugation of one group by another, and the practice of one person owning another in a very real, legal, incontrovertible sense.
(Some of you may take offense to me stating that the so-called slavery found within the lifestyle is any less binding than the classical definition and practice of that institution. That's a separate rant, and one I'll be happy to make to you at a later time through here, or at your leisure through e-mail, etc. Suffice it to say that no matter what you may consider yourself to be, you are not a slave, for numerous and diverse reasons that should be self-evident.)
If you'll recall your history lessons, slavery was extremely prevalent up to the time of the industrial revolution. It existed (and exists) beyond then, of course, but we'll use that period as the easiest common reference, and the last period in which slavery was an accepted practice on a global scale. Africa was a leading source of (though by no means a sole contributor to) slave labor, and the view was held by those in power at the time (vis. the English, French, Spanish, etc) that not only was slavery the natural state of the inferior (to their way of thinking) African people, but that they were indeed happier and more productive as slaves and property, that to be put in such a state was an improvement on the Africans' lot in life. As time and trial have shown, this...there can be no stronger term for it than "evilly wrong-headed"...view was shown to be false. And yet, it seems some have forgotten that, as evinced by the given definition of female supremacy.
To assume that any group is inherently meant to act as servitors is an abject fallacy, and a fundamentally loathsome idea. While some may individually chose to serve of their own free will, to assume service based on any arbitrary standard of gender, color, race, or other ludicrous reason, is inherently wrong. Following that, to assume dominance based on the above mentioned criteria is also plainly absurd, for the same reasons.
To be fair, everything just stated above is of course belief backed by personal reflection, without the experience of classical slavery form either side of the lash. As such, it has what to me feels like the makings of a universal truth, but one that has not been personally tested as I've never been in a situation to actually be a slave, or slave-owner. If the comparison between classical slavery views and the views inherent in female supremacy aren't to your taste, feel free to ignore everything mentioned in that part. The point that I find to be relevant to me, and all the moreso because of actual experience in the area, follows.
Female supremacy, by very definition, is an abject refutation of and challenge to every other pairing within the context of domination and submission besides the FemDom-submissive male connection. Since I know quite a few happy, successful pairings and groupings of male dominants with female subs, male dominants with male subs, female dominants with female subs, and the broad spectrum of switches, alt-gender-identities, and so on, I'm forced to point out that the entire concept of inherent female supremacy is rendered null and void. Indeed, I have submissive and switchy sisters alike who would happily agree, and even more happily offer to insert a (well-manicured) nail into the eye sockets of anyone who would even hint at the suggestion that they are misguided, unfulfilled, or wrong for not taking the lead role.
So to those adherents of female supremacy out there, I ask: How do you justify your beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence (not that which I spoke of, or not soley that) to the contrary? Do you truly believe in it? Can you honestly set store by such a view, when attending nearly any gathering of mixed BDSM folk provides a flat denial of it? These questions are aimed at any and all who claim to follow this path, be they dominant, submissive, or any identifier not covered. I honestly would like to know how you reconcile such a belief against the actual state of things. Please, do enlighten me, at length if necessary. I'll look forward to it.
_____________________________
~Squirrel~
I wept for I had no shoes, then I met the bastard who took them. Who's crying *now*, fetish-boy?
From a word to a word I was led to a word, from a deed to another deed.
|
Female Supremacy: A Manifesto - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread