RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life..

RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

Tavane -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 9:38:51 AM)
I enjoyed Archie Bunker's comment on male superiority. He was a bigot from a TV comedy long ago called All In The Family. He dismissed any notion that the female was remotely equal by pointing out that 'The woman was made from a man's rib. Cheaper cut." It didn't make much sense to me, being a prime rib fan, but that kind of stuff is fun to say in a battle of the sexes conversation. There have been lots of studies done regarding brain differences, and that females use one side of the brain more, and males the other, so some things males are (very generally speaking) "better at", and some things females are "better at", all of which are irrelevant since we deal with individuals, not generalities, but they can be interesting and fun to know. I read an article once which contended that boys were better than girls at math because boys needed to "figure out" their gender role, since they were constantly surrounded by females when young children, whether mothers, teachers, babysitters, whereas girls just needed to copy what they saw, so boys developed such skills earlier and more naturally. Other studies have contended that women are better at functioning in groups, more willing to compromise, listen to another's point of view, etc, whereas men are more competitive, try to dominate groups, rather than listening and trying to use the benefits of a group discussion to pool knowledge for the purpose of finding the best answer/truth/whatever. Males have that dominant bull attitude, whereas women don't, and are more interested in achieving the best objective, rather than their own objective. I really haven't paid much attention to it. From my own totally unscientific experiences and learning, I feel that, even accounting for historical gender role pressures; Women are better at skills involving dexterity, such as cursive, sewing, needlework, etc. When you compare the average girl's handwriting to a boy's, it's far superior. There is no societal reason for that, or pressure on boys to have crummy, "masculine" weriting. Girls are just better. Females are better at compromising, in almost any environment. They are not interested in dominating, but are more interested in being fair, and in actually listening to another point of view, or just listening, period. They are more accepting of and supportive of problems of their peers. Men won't show weakness to other males, nor discuss problems with them, as women do with each other. Women are more interested in working hard for the benefit of the relationship/family/children, and subordinating her own interests to whatever is best for that very small group. Again, the concepts of fairness and lack of dominance prevail. It's very rare for males to perform close to have the household/relationship tasks, even though they both work outside the home equal hours. Some of this is evolutionary, in that the female enjoys feeding and caring for her family's needs, as a natural function of being a female, and is one reason service submissives find it difficult for a woman to turn over all the household chores to the male. She actually enjoys them. It does'nt bother a woman if there is inequality in such things in a relationship, so long as she gets a reasonable amount of cooperation from the male. Women are better at studying, focusing on achieving the goal of succeeding academically. They will study almost constantly, and even to excessive levels. Some of this may be because women want to prove they can succeed as well as men, but it was true even back when females had no chance to compete fairly with males in the professional world. Women are more faithful, generally. They don't chase males, don't enjoy sex for its own sake with an acquaintance or stranger, don't regard sexual "conquest" as some kind of peer group or individual value, and their sexuality is very different, and doesn't overpower their actions and values. They are far superior as Mistresses. On the other hand, when it comes to drinking lots of beer with same-sex friends, and seeing who can pee farther or higher in a contest, males are far superior.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 10:41:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardbodysub As long as you don't try to prove that all females are superior to all males, I say go for it. I'd even like to join you sometime. What? You mean the bimbo with "Would you like fries with it" programmed into her speech is not superior to some guy like Einstein or Hawkins? Tsk tsk... I find it quite ridiculous that a lot of people seem to think superiority has to do with your gender and not your brain, the funniest things are usually the websites of some female supremacists with really horrendous spelling and grammar, but hey maybe they are so superior that they can make their own rules ;)

ShaktiSama -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 11:35:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze I find it quite ridiculous that a lot of people seem to think superiority has to do with your gender and not your brain, the funniest things are usually the websites of some female supremacists with really horrendous spelling and grammar, but hey maybe they are so superior that they can make their own rules ;) What I find amusing is the assumption that Female Supremacy websites are actually designed and built BY or FOR actual women. This is a male fantasy, folks. Further, it is a fantasy that can only exist in a male-dominated society! Haven't you ever noticed that the men depicted in these websites are COMPLETELY not fantasy material for any woman--but especially not the women depicted in the photos? Or do we honestly believe that gorgeous, fit, leather-clad goddesses in their early 20's to mid 30's are just naturally DRIPPING, of their own volition, to dominate some paunchy, balding, doughy white middle-class worm in his late 40's to mid-60's for kicks and to feel "powerful"? Not bloody likely. When women are in charge, they tend to pick men very much the way powerful men do: youth, strength, beauty, and talent are the features they look for. Quite honestly, the most offensive and obnoxious aspect of "Female Supremacy" websites and rhetoric is not the idea of female power, but the idea that this puerile sexist fantasy has ANYTHING to do with real female power in the real world--politically, socially, physically, or sexually. If people are really serious about female-dominated societies, they need to educate themselves FAR more about what a real female-dominated culture looks like, and how the people in them actually live on a daily basis. Matriarchy in the real world is NOT just a twisted, hateful mirror image of patriarchal fascism: female domination over a whole society creates an entirely different form of civilization. Take a good look at Minoan civilization of Antiquity, the Khasi of India and Bangladesh, the Mosuo of China, the Choctaw of North America, or countless other examples where matriarchy and matrilineality have been practiced, both in modern times and in the ancient world. When women rule a society they do not tend to create crushing hierarchies of poverty, pain, disease and death. If you need any real proof of female "superiority", the only real evidence of any value is this: through the accidents of human biology, a society in which women are equal or superior to men seems to create better and more egalitarian living conditions for ALL PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN IT, male and female, than a society of analogous complexity which happens to be ruled by men. This is true in every case I have studied to date, and I have yet to find an exception to the rule. It seems to be a function of population growth and control. When women have value as human beings, rather than merely as units of production and as property, they naturally give birth to fewer children and invest more resources in the children they do have. Fewer people = more resources to go around. More resources per person = less competition. Less competition = less aggression, less hierarchy, less war, and less intra-cultural violence. In a patriarchal society, where women are essentially nothing more than a form of livestock, women are forced to breed until they die (maternal mortality is a risk in every pregnancy), and then replaced the way one would replace an ox who had grown too old to pull the plow. These societies produce a great over-abundance of population and tend to expand exponentially. More people = less resources to go around = more competition = more hierarchy, violence, war, poverty, etc.. It's simply a function of the strain that human populations create on their resource base. shrug The reason that patriarchal societies tend to dominate the earth is that they have such a massive surplus of population that they can swamp and destroy societies in which people are living healthier, more peaceful and egalitarian lives. This is the sense in which matriarchy is the "losing team" of human evolution. Masses of people living in poverty, misery and violence are "the right answer" in evolutionary terms, because people who are consuming less resources and creating less overpopulation are too easily wiped out by large armies of the "have-nots" that result from patriarchal social organization. The physical differences between men and women are very slight, in biological terms. Stature is a few centimeters higher on average in men, just as skin tone is a few shades darker. We can call men "stronger", I suppose, but we must recognize that this is a culturally created dichotomy. Physical strength and muscle mass are built by cultural practices--the female body has the same potential for strength and speed as the male body does, if it is trained from childhood to perform in those arenas. The Spartan civilization proved this over 2000 years ago, and it is just as true today as it was then. Females do have slightly greater resistance to pain, disease, and privation than males do, physically speaking; this division is so strong in some culture groups that Maya women have been known to give birth to healthy infants and successfully nurse them under conditions which are killing their men with starvation. I suspect this is the main reason that women often feed their husbands and sons before they feed themselves, in many cultures around the world--it's not just because men are "superior" or "ruling the household", it is because men are physically more vulnerable to nutritional stress, and the women take steps to protect them. In much the same way, men tend to place themselves in harm's way in many societies because they know that they are more expendable than women are, in terms of the survival of the family and community. For the first two years of life, an infant under normal conditions will die if deprived of its mother: it has a higher chance of survival if the father dies, although the highest chance of survival is enjoyed by the infant which receives full parental and community investment from an extended family. These cultural practices can be couched in all sorts of social and political terms, but I am trying to point out that SOME of the realities behind them are realities of the human body. The slight differences between male and female bodies can motivate a great deal of human behavior, even down to food-gathering behavior. For example, in the majority of human cultures, men have a greater tendency to hunt and women have a greater tendency to gather--this is often assumed to be motivated by the desire to shield women from high-risk activities, but in practical terms gathering is often equally dangerous in terms of exposure to hostile predators and other hostile human groups. I suspect the real reason women have a tendency to "gather" is because they need a far greater supply of micronutrients and folate found in fruits, roots, nuts and vegetables than men do, in order to develop a healthy reproductive system, give birth to healthy babies and nurse them. By contrast, men probably have a tendency to hunt because their daily protein needs are far higher than those of women, and this is especially true during their developmental years from 12-25, when their grams of protein necessary for healthy development are 200% greater than those of their female counterparts. What has all this got to do with sexist fantasies of gender superiority? Absolutely fuck all. That's always the case with real science. Physical realities have very little to do with culture biases and the emotional needs of individual kink-meisters.

MsDonnaMia -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 11:39:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen quote: ORIGINAL: MsDonnaMia Well, it doesn't take too much common sense if you look around! Men are always chasing after us. Not to say women don't go after guys.. but you can't deny men are usually the ones who chase, buy gifts, spend money on us and so on much more. As far as the men being the secondary sex and stuff..there's a primitive way of looking at it: when a lion attacks the village its the men who risk and sacrifice themselves to defend us. We are the half of the species who carries and bears the child, and we need protecting. This is instinctual in men and a clue in nature about which sex is more disposable. They do a lot of the hard, laborous work in society, too. That's why men are so yummily strong. [:)] ya don't need science to spell it out in black and white for you to conclude all that. I gotta ask...how do masculine identified females fit into this narrow world view for you? Women protect women all the time...women put themselves in bad situations to protect one another all the time. And women often have no problem standing up from themselves without that guy who's sitting in the corner picking his nose. It baffles me that you think any form of life is disposable. In fact because females last long in the womb there are more women to men in ratio. And yet, you seem to think that men aren't needed? I'd like to see how well you do that reproduction thing on your own since you've "sent" all the men off to slaughter. last time I checked, we weren't talking about the transgendered crowd, we're talking about typical female and male behavior, right? At least I was. I also never said men weren't needed. Of course they are! I LOVE men! They are useful for a lot of things, of course. And... send them to the slaughter house? Boy, talk about taking something and running with it, lol.

PeonForHer -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 11:47:37 AM)
maybe they are so superior that they can make their own rules I think that really is what happens in the end, Lady C. It's part of what the sociologists call 'legitimisation'. Something like, "Whatever we do just must be the best thing to do, because we're the ones doing it, and we're the best people." As a dominant woman quipped to me once after making a spelling mistake, "Femdoms don't misspell words. They create new ways of spelling." (I see no-one's told me yet that I'm nearly as good as a woman because I can use a sewing machine. Well, I'm nothing if not patient.)

MsDonnaMia -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 11:51:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama This is a male fantasy, folks. Further, it is a fantasy that can only exist in a male-dominated society! Haven't you ever noticed that the men depicted in these websites are COMPLETELY not fantasy material for any woman--but especially not the women depicted in the photos? Or do we honestly believe that gorgeous, fit, leather-clad goddesses in their early 20's to mid 30's are just naturally DRIPPING, of their own volition, to dominate some paunchy, balding, doughy white middle-class worm in his late 40's to mid-60's for kicks and to feel "powerful"? You lost me here. I don't know what this has to do with actual female supremacy. sorry "folks", it's not just all fantasy. Some of us really live it and we're not defined by middle-aged men looking for top service. Give me a break.

PeonForHer -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 12:03:25 PM)
it's not just all fantasy. Some of us really live it If that's true, Ms DM, then you might be in a position to answer the OP - I don't think anyone actually has given him what he wanted to know yet.

slavekal -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 12:37:43 PM)
In all honesty, men are superior in some ways, and women are superior in others. But when it comes to one on one, any woman who chooses to embrace her femininity can wrap a man around her little finger. We boys can't do that to the ladies.

PeonForHer -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 12:49:06 PM)
In all honesty, men are superior in some ways, and women are superior in others. But when it comes to one on one, any woman who chooses to embrace her femininity can wrap a man around her little finger. We boys can't do that to the ladies. So, you're saying that women are more devious and manipulative, Kal? [:D] (Cf. the earlier argument about 'spin')

LadyConstanze -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 1:07:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama What I find amusing is the assumption that Female Supremacy websites are actually designed and built BY or FOR actual women. So all the women I met who are into FS are actually men? Please do enlighten me how you found out and if there is actually any evidence of this? I can assure you my eyesight is 20/20 and I met quite a lot of them in person, so I'd be more than interested to know how they could fool me quite that much. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama This is a male fantasy, folks. Further, it is a fantasy that can only exist in a male-dominated society! Haven't you ever noticed that the men depicted in these websites are COMPLETELY not fantasy material for any woman--but especially not the women depicted in the photos? Or do we honestly believe that gorgeous, fit, leather-clad goddesses in their early 20's to mid 30's are just naturally DRIPPING, of their own volition, to dominate some paunchy, balding, doughy white middle-class worm in his late 40's to mid-60's for kicks and to feel "powerful"? Oh wow, so whenever I played with somebody who wasn't your ideal, automatically I didn't have fun? Interesting... I thought there was something like chemistry, but I agree with you that I never played with "worms", I prefer human males. As for the typical "You worm" stuff, that only says one thing to me: They set their expectations quite low... quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Not bloody likely. When women are in charge, they tend to pick men very much the way powerful men do: youth, strength, beauty, and talent are the features they look for. quote: Really? Well you know, dominating a member of a boy band was never an idea that turned me on, brain however does, and I don't care too much how it is packaged, youth was never a deciding factor, I prefer life-experience and a brain, that is strength to me, more strength than a gym steeled body. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Quite honestly, the most offensive and obnoxious aspect of "Female Supremacy" websites and rhetoric is not the idea of female power, but the idea that this puerile sexist fantasy has ANYTHING to do with real female power in the real world--politically, socially, physically, or sexually. If people are really serious about female-dominated societies, they need to educate themselves FAR more about what a real female-dominated culture looks like, and how the people in them actually live on a daily basis. You wouldn't care to give one example of a "real female-dominated culture" and what it looks like? Preferably one in the 1st or 2nd world, because I don't think some obscure tribe quite compares with the way we live now. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Matriarchy in the real world is NOT just a twisted, hateful mirror image of patriarchal fascism: female domination over a whole society creates an entirely different form of civilization. Take a good look at Minoan civilization of Antiquity, the Khasi of India and Bangladesh, the Mosuo of China, the Choctaw of North America, or countless other examples where matriarchy and matrilineality have been practiced, both in modern times and in the ancient world. When women rule a society they do not tend to create crushing hierarchies of poverty, pain, disease and death. In modern times? I don't think they are really living a modern way of life. Now women have ruled societies, but I wouldn't say that everybody was better off and there was less poverty, pain, disease and death under Margaret Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth I quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama If you need any real proof of female "superiority", the only real evidence of any value is this: through the accidents of human biology, a society in which women are equal or superior to men seems to create better and more egalitarian living conditions for ALL PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN IT, male and female, than a society of analogous complexity which happens to be ruled by men. Again, please give an example, I like history but so far I have to find an example of a society where women are equal or superior, and especially how it creates better conditions, unless of course you are talking StarTrek here.... quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama This is true in every case I have studied to date, and I have yet to find an exception to the rule. It seems to be a function of population growth and control. When women have value as human beings, rather than merely as units of production and as property, they naturally give birth to fewer children and invest more resources in the children they do have. Fewer people = more resources to go around. More resources per person = less competition. Less competition = less aggression, less hierarchy, less war, and less intra-cultural violence. Sounds good, but I would like to see some evidence. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama In a patriarchal society, where women are essentially nothing more than a form of livestock, women are forced to breed until they die (maternal mortality is a risk in every pregnancy), and then replaced the way one would replace an ox who had grown too old to pull the plow. These societies produce a great over-abundance of population and tend to expand exponentially. More people = less resources to go around = more competition = more hierarchy, violence, war, poverty, etc.. It's simply a function of the strain that human populations create on their resource base. That might have been true in the middle ages or in 3rd world countries, I would say our society is still pretty much patriarchal but where are women forced to breed until they die? Contraceptives are quite easily available and most developed countries actually are actually experiencing quite the opposite, the numbers of the population are dwindling. Now have most European countries and the US turned into matriarchies and I just haven't noticed??? quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama The physical differences between men and women are very slight, in biological terms. Stature is a few centimeters higher on average in men, just as skin tone is a few shades darker. We can call men "stronger", I suppose, but we must recognize that this is a culturally created dichotomy. Physical strength and muscle mass are built by cultural practices--the female body has the same potential for strength and speed as the male body does, if it is trained from childhood to perform in those arenas. The Spartan civilization proved this over 2000 years ago, and it is just as true today as it was then. Actually Sparta was one of the few city states in ancient Greece that allowed women to do sports and actively encouraged them, but it certainly didn't prove that women have the same potential for strength and speed as men. We are biologically different but that doesn't make men better or women better, it just makes us different. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Females do have slightly greater resistance to pain, disease, and privation than males do, physically speaking; this division is so strong in some culture groups that Maya women have been known to give birth to healthy infants and successfully nurse them under conditions which are killing their men with starvation. I suspect this is the main reason that women often feed their husbands and sons before they feed themselves, in many cultures around the world--it's not just because men are "superior" or "ruling the household", it is because men are physically more vulnerable to nutritional stress, and the women take steps to protect them. If you look at evolution, men traditionally hunted and women gathered more, so through thousands of years and survival of the fittest those traits were passed on, also giving birth requires the female body to endure more, again, it makes us different but not better. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama In much the same way, men tend to place themselves in harm's way in many societies because they know that they are more expendable than women are, in terms of the survival of the family and community. For the first two years of life, an infant under normal conditions will die if deprived of its mother: it has a higher chance of survival if the father dies, although the highest chance of survival is enjoyed by the infant which receives full parental and community investment from an extended family. That is the case with most mammals, take the mother away while still suckling and the chances are that the offspring dies, it's nature but how does that make a female of any species superior? It simply makes her better equipped to fulfill the role nature intended for her, carrying on the species, but without a man to impregnate her, fat chance of that! quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama These cultural practices can be couched in all sorts of social and political terms, but I am trying to point out that SOME of the realities behind them are realities of the human body. The slight differences between male and female bodies can motivate a great deal of human behavior, even down to food-gathering behavior. For example, in the majority of human cultures, men have a greater tendency to hunt and women have a greater tendency to gather--this is often assumed to be motivated by the desire to shield women from high-risk activities, but in practical terms gathering is often equally dangerous in terms of exposure to hostile predators and other hostile human groups. I suspect the real reason women have a tendency to "gather" is because they need a far greater supply of micronutrients and folate found in fruits, roots, nuts and vegetables than men do, in order to develop a healthy reproductive system, give birth to healthy babies and nurse them. So you are saying gathering is just as dangerous as hunting down a brontosaurus? You know if you give me the choice of gathering food or challenging a bull on a field with a primitive weapon, I know which activity I would find significantly less dangerous... quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama By contrast, men probably have a tendency to hunt because their daily protein needs are far higher than those of women, and this is especially true during their developmental years from 12-25, when their grams of protein necessary for healthy development are 200% greater than those of their female counterparts. I think men hunted because it was a higher risk activity, now if men die it is not that essential for the species, in fact most male animals are brighter and less well camouflaged than the females. Also 1 male can father almost simultaneously children with lots of women, whereas when the woman is pregnant it will take her over 9 months to get pregnant again, a guy can impregnate one woman and then move on to the next. A male can father countless children, a woman is a lot more limited as to the number of children she can have, so a male in terms of nature is easier to replace. If you look at a pride of lions, one lion fathers all the cubs of one pride, the females do all the hunting but the male still dominates the pride... quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama What has all this got to do with sexist fantasies of gender superiority? Absolutely fuck all. That's always the case with real science. Physical realities have very little to do with culture biases and the emotional needs of individual kink-meisters. If people want to play FS, they are welcome to it, it's their kink and while it might not be my kink, it's absolutely not my place to tell anybody that my kink is better or more valuable than theirs. I can assure you that there are quite a lot of women out there who are into FS, I'm not because I find the idea of superiority based on gender a bit ridiculous but if people get off on it, more power to them and as long as they don't try to force it down my throat, I have the same view on it as I have on religion: Each and everybody's private affair, as long as nobody tries to "reform" me, I couldn't care less!

Tavane -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 1:28:09 PM)
I'm not interested in what happened/happens in some primitive cultures, nor in some concept that men hunt or fight because they are more "expendable", or need more ptotein. These behaviors are purely evolutionary. The man is the best hunter, and the women is too busy having and raising children, since with humans, it takes so many years for the offspring to mature. We survived only because men were able to hunt and kill; and because women were able to give birth and raise children. Thse roles were determined by natural selection, and it was the physical dominance and aggresson of the males, and their freedom from child care, which enabled men to totally dominate societies up until less than 100 years ago. In the home, the man could physically beat the woman into submission. In society, these men who naturally regarded women as inferior, incorporated these ways of life, into social behaviors and even basic religious concepts and of course laws. In modern society, the physical superiority of males is irreleavant. We don't need to hunt or protect our family, and can't beat our women into submission in the home. It's the brain which dominates modern achievement, and it's quite clear that women and men are equally able to use their brains to achieve whatever they attempt, and that nearly everyone accepts that reality.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 2:43:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze So all the women I met who are into FS are actually men? Are these women you're referring to the authors of the websites in question? Because if so, you might want to correct their spelling and grammar to their faces, rather than bitching about their stupidity behind their backs on a message board after the fact. Personally, I am addressing the content of the Female Supremacy Websites I have seen on-line, all of which were full of pictures of attractive younger women proving their "supremacy" by dominating unattractive older men. I should note of course that the vast majority of "female dominant" pornography of any type seems to be made for and marketed to/by men, and Fem-Sup material is no different in this respect. quote: Oh wow, so whenever I played with somebody who wasn't your ideal, automatically I didn't have fun? Since you are not a female supremacist or a producer of female supremacist pornography, I have no idea why you think we are discussing you and your personal habits. And there is nothing about MY ideals which has anything to do with YOUR fun--so stop attempting to put words into my mouth which were never there. I don't care who YOU choose to play with. I will say, however, that the overwhelmingly vast majority of beautiful young women I have met in my life have preferred to "have fun" with equally attractive young men, rather than doughily unattractive older men. If your experience has been different? Excuse me all to hell. [;)] My attitudes on this subject are shaped by my experience with meeting a great many young women who model for erotic photography, and observing their tastes, habits and attitudes. Very few of them chose to "have fun" with older men on anything but a pay-per-play basis. quote: You wouldn't care to give one example of a "real female-dominated culture" and what it looks like? Preferably one in the 1st or 2nd world, because I don't think some obscure tribe quite compares with the way we live now. I've already explained how the patriarchal cultures of the so-called "first world" have come to dominate the globe. "Obscure tribes" are not inferior to "1st or 2nd world" societies in anything except their rapacity and the environmental devastation they cause. Sorry if the examples I've given you are not to your taste; my whole point is that the female supremacist fantasy has nothing to do with matriarchal reality, I wasn't really looking for a Zsa-Zsa Gabor "Queen of Outer Space" example that would affirm that fantasy as "real". As a scientist I was not trained to dismiss other cultures as unworthy of analysis because their people don't wear enough Armani suits. quote: Now women have ruled societies, but I wouldn't say that everybody was better off and there was less poverty, pain, disease and death under Margaret Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth I England under both female monarchs remained a patriarchal society with typical patriarchal population growth and management. In fact, the gender of an individual monarch is meaningless in terms of overall social organization: this is why the occasional "queen" one finds buried in Mesopotamia does not give us the impression that those civilizations were "matriarchal". quote: Again, please give an example, I like history but so far I have to find an example of a society where women are equal or superior, and especially how it creates better conditions, unless of course you are talking StarTrek here.... I gave you several examples. If you want more information, try your google search engine. There is a great deal of published information, on every scale of media from the peer-reviewed journal and scholarly texts to articles from newspapers and magazines, on these societies and their cultural practices. quote: That might have been true in the middle ages or in 3rd world countries, I would say our society is still pretty much patriarchal but where are women forced to breed until they die? To the exact degree that equality takes hold in ANY society, its birth rate and its rate of maternal mortality begin to drop. In fact, the two are directly correlated in cultures of every level of complexity around the world. I do not need to provide you with this evidence: pick any country in the world that has given women legal rights and check the maternal mortality death rates and population growth rates from the time these laws were instituted to the present day. quote: Now have most European countries and the US turned into matriarchies and I just haven't noticed??? The vast majority of European countries have been instituting legal and social equality between the sexes for the past hundred years VERY steadily. Patriarchy is losing its grip on the political and social machinery of these countries, and their birth rates have decreased accordingly, and in many cases their standards of living have increased in step with these changes. quote: So you are saying gathering is just as dangerous as hunting down a brontosaurus? Errr...wow. Am I actually talking to a person who believes that our human or pre-human ancestors spent a lot of time hunting dinosaurs--?

aidan -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 2:45:56 PM)
Wow, Constanze, I can't begin to address everything in your post (especially the self-contradictory stuff. Female Supremacy fantasies are good? Bad? Wha?) but I will cover your disregard for Shakti's examples of matriarchal cultures and subsequent demand for more. Fact is, she gave you perfectly good examples that you threw out on cultural bias. Simply because they're not "first world", "tribal" or "ancient" does not make them germane to the the conversation, a facet of which is the question "what would/does a female dominated culture look like?" Just because these groups did not or do not have our technological sophistication or governmental model does not disbar them from comparison. You say you want their not living a "modern way of life." Perhaps not. What the actual phrasing said was they are in "modern times", i.e. contemporary, i.e. existing right now. The first group mentioned as not being in antiquity, the Khasi, have a current estimated population of 1,361,100. Why are there no examples given from the "first world"? Because those nations are almost all part of a large quasi-monoculture and have shared roots in ancient mediterranean, and later European, societies. They're all roughly the same when it comes to gender politics, that is to say, they are patriarchal. We are a patriarchal culture, and we are the First World. Just because you do not like the examples given does not make them factually inaccurate or rationally invalid. And this to say nothing of the other rampant scientific inaccuracies that your post is riddled with. Brontosaurus hunting? Really?

MsKittyBlack -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 2:46:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsDonnaMia last time I checked, we weren't talking about the transgendered crowd, we're talking about typical female and male behavior, right? At least I was. I also never said men weren't needed. Of course they are! I LOVE men! They are useful for a lot of things, of course. And... send them to the slaughter house? Boy, talk about taking something and running with it, lol. Masculine and male identified are two different things. And yet you still cannot explain a lesbian situation. Besides you're the one who said men are "disposable" from, MsKitty's boi...who forgets to log out...aka boiJen

LadyConstanze -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 3:00:36 PM)
Wow are you having PMS, have I touched a nerve or are you always so catty? As to the women who have FS websites, I nowhere said ALL of them have spelling mistakes, putting words into my mouth doesn't make your argument more valuable and you still haven't given me an answer how you know that they were made by men. You referred to leather clad women in their 20's and 30's whipping men, not FS whipping men, so I would think that would be part of the discussion. And whipping men doesn't seem to be a thing that only FS do. Well, since your experience was with models, it might be slightly different, because a lot of fetish models do domming by request and not because they are into it, but strictly on a play for pay basis, so possibly those views might be a bit clouded by who you talk to. Now as a scientist you should know that you always back up a claim with facts. No you didn't give examples but if you have none, that's quite alright, just say so. Sorry, but haven't you neglected the fact that birthcontrol is more readily available and that might have to do A LOT more with the fact that birth rates are dropping than equal rights? Because frankly, equal rights will not stop a woman from getting pregnant, birth control will. Now now now, since you decide to be catty again and claim your scientific background again, please do give some evidence of those tribes, in no way I called them unworthy (again your tendency to put words into my mouth) but I would still like to have some evidence of them. Telling me to google for them doesn't count as evidence. And sorry for not finding the sarcasm button, obviously the little pun on Palin must have escaped you, but hey maybe you needed a chance to make a cheap pop. I would have assumed that the brontosaur joke was fairly obvious, but I will make a point of not using humour when talking to you.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 3:09:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aidan Wow, Constanze, I can't begin to address everything in your post (especially the self-contradictory stuff. Female Supremacy fantasies are good? Bad? Wha?) but I will cover your disregard for Shakti's examples of matriarchal cultures and subsequent demand for more. Fact is, she gave you perfectly good examples that you threw out on cultural bias. Simply because they're not "first world", "tribal" or "ancient" does not make them germane to the the conversation, a facet of which is the question "what would/does a female dominated culture look like?" Just because these groups did not or do not have our technological sophistication or governmental model does not disbar them from comparison. You say you want their not living a "modern way of life." Perhaps not. What the actual phrasing said was they are in "modern times", i.e. contemporary, i.e. existing right now. The first group mentioned as not being in antiquity, the Khasi, have a current estimated population of 1,361,100. Why are there no examples given from the "first world"? Because those nations are almost all part of a large quasi-monoculture and have shared roots in ancient mediterranean, and later European, societies. They're all roughly the same when it comes to gender politics, that is to say, they are patriarchal. We are a patriarchal culture, and we are the First World. Just because you do not like the examples given does not make them factually inaccurate or rationally invalid. And this to say nothing of the other rampant scientific inaccuracies that your post is riddled with. Brontosaurus hunting? Really? Look , if you don't get the Brontosaurus joke (remember Palin, OK) that is fine! I thought it would be obvious for most but apparently I was wrong. I must have overestimated the capacity of humour.... Now you can't compare different cultures and living conditions and completely different times to our society. It simply doesn't translate. Take a tribe that might still be living under completely different conditions and something might work for them, nowhere can you apply that to the society we life in as an example and a shining ray of hope. Unless we are willing to give up our way of like, including the technology and everything, there is NO WAY that we can compare the societies and say "Women are so much better off there" because I'm willing to bet that not a lot of women are going to change our world for theirs. So nope, matriarchy isn't the answer to the world's problems and won't create a better world.

hardbodysub -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 3:40:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavekal In all honesty, men are superior in some ways, and women are superior in others. But when it comes to one on one, any woman who chooses to embrace her femininity can wrap a man around her little finger. We boys can't do that to the ladies. Hey kal, I agree with you in most things, but I can't agree that "any woman" can wrap a man around her little finger. Some can, some can't. And they can do it to some men, not others. Some women could enthrall me in an instant, but others could try their whole lives and not even come close. (If you're using Ms. Mlicious as the template, I'd have to agree with you, but she's exceptional, not "any woman.") Likewise, some men can wrap women around their fingers. But it depends on the individuals. If, instead of saying "any woman", and talk about the average, I'd agree that on average, men are more seducible than women.

beeble -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 4:24:26 PM)
quote: ShaktiSama wrote: I've already explained how the patriarchal cultures of the so-called "first world" have come to dominate the globe. By the way, the phrase `first world' is largely meaningless since the fall of the Soviet Union. The first world was the US and its allies (Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand); the second world was the Soviet Bloc, China, North Korea and Vietnam; the third world was everyone else. The second world was just as patriarchal as the first world and, frankly, most of the third world, too. beeble.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 4:54:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Wow are you having PMS, have I touched a nerve or are you always so catty? Wow, are you getting increasingly personal with every post? quote: As to the women who have FS websites... Framing this debate about bad FS websites as being somehow my fault, or initiated by me, is useless. I was not the woman using words like "bimbo" to describe ANY other woman, quite frankly, nor did I bring up the subject of websites which have poor spelling etc. as being exemplary of female supremacist stupidity. The websites I am talking about (and which I assumed you were also talking about) ARE extremely off-putting and often filled with horribly bigoted rhetoric which is literally cribbed from the racial supremacist literature about "superior" and "inferior" races (replacing those terms with gender/sex terms). Many of them are paysites which are very blatantly designed for male purchasers of femdom pornography or pro domme services. No, I don't like them. Yes, I find them insulting and demeaning to people of both sexes. I am not going to apologize for this opinion, to you or anyone else. Period, end of story. The only female supremacist website that I am aware of which is run by a real woman is actually quite beautifully presented, and not at all guilty of that kind of garbage. The lifestyle depicted is very idealized, but it is very much offered from HER point of view, not solely from the male submissive fantasy of the Woman-As-Fascist-Ogress viewpoint. The men depicted in her photographs are attractive, strong, and beautifully submissive to her; there is nothing abject or ugly or demeaning about the artwork, nor does she express belittling or hateful attitudes toward men, in her writing or her photos and videos. The woman who has put the site together is a lady of formidable intelligence, beauty, and style--she also has a wonderful spirit and has gentle humor, grace and wisdom at her command. Is she a female supremacist? Absolutely! Does she run a pay site? Absolutely. Is she an illiterate bigoted moron who cannot write a complete sentence in her mother tongue? Uh...no. Does she hate men and demean men with her every word and deed? Uh...no. My argument is that sites of the kind we were discussing--crude, bigoted, demeaning, and hell, sometimes half-illiterate--are actually more likely to serve the fantasies of a certain portion of the male porn-buying community than the fantasies of any real dominant woman--supremacist or not. If your argument is that there are real women behind the stupid Nazi-like illiterate goonery associated with Female Supremacy on some particularly unattractive websites? I would be disappointed in my gender to find this is true. A silly porn fantasy about Evil FemDom Overlords is far less disturbing to me than the idea that ANY woman would really buy into the ugly, hateful version of female supremacist ideology in real life. As to the rest of this? I'm not going to pursue the argument about science or anthropology any further, because I think there are misunderstandings here which are not worth exacerbating. I am not a female supremacist myself, but I do think there is just as much validity to this worldview as there is to any other. I entered that material into this thread because I thought it might be helpful to contribute some scientific and historical facts associated with matriarchal, matrilineal and egalitarian societies in real life. That's really about the size of it.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Experiences of female superiority in real life.. (2/21/2009 4:56:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beeble quote: ShaktiSama wrote: I've already explained how the patriarchal cultures of the so-called "first world" have come to dominate the globe. By the way, the phrase `first world' is largely meaningless since the fall of the Soviet Union. The first world was the US and its allies (Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand); the second world was the Soviet Bloc, China, North Korea and Vietnam; the third world was everyone else. The second world was just as patriarchal as the first world and, frankly, most of the third world, too. beeble. Hence my putting it in quotation marks--it was not my term, nor is it a term that really fits for my purposes. I tend to divide societies into levels of social complexity and types of social organization, not categories associated with recent political history.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875