|
PeonForHer -> RE: Worship a Female sub. (8/5/2009 9:44:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ignoreme
quote:
Female supremacy is not something that one 'believes in' and promotes as a 'philosophy' because if it were as true and natural as you say, it'd already exist. Nobody would need to argue that men accept females as superior - much less supreme - because we'd have no choice but to see it. We can't see it, because it doesn't exist. Ergo, it's not true and not natural.
There are quite a few people that believe females would be better leaders and managers, and there have been a few studies pointing out the same. Of course, this doesn't make them superior...
But to say it's not natural is plain wrong, our society and culture is a construct, not natural order. Equality isn't natural either. In pack animals (including humans), every animal has his position in the social order. There have been some tribes that were matriarchal. Whether we agree with it or not, our society could become that too.
In a major sense I agree. I don't think that there are 'natural leaders' either. I was arguing against Inferior on that point re women being 'natural leaders'. And I don't believe men are 'natural leaders' either. There have been certain tribes that were matriarchal, though matriarchy in these wasn't as all-embracing as patriarchy was, once, in ours. There are more matriarchal societies still, today, though these are small and looking as though their chances of surviving aren't great.
Society, I think, is part natural and part construct. The truth is that we don't know how much nature and how much construct is involved. Beyond a certain limited point it's useless to reference other species because even the closest of these clearly have different 'natures'. Gorillas, for instance, live quite differently to chimpanzees.
Women, on the whole, might make better managers and leaders. I'm aware of studies that say this. But when it comes to choosing which individual person you want, for example, to run a country - knowing this doesn't help. You'd have to look for specific qualities in the candidates, regardless of their sex. That's what I mean by 'meritocracy'. To do otherwise - to pick a female candidate would be to prejudge her as better just because she's a woman. That is, it'd be to pick her on the basis of prejudice. In exactly the same way there is, no doubt, old 'evidence' that whites are better at leading than blacks. That doesn't matter either - it's the individual, not the group, that counts.
Whether we agree with it or not, our society could become [matriarchal] too
True - but extremely unlikely. The general change hasn't been towards seeing this or that 'group' as better or worse than another. In fact, the general change has been against seeing people in terms of groups at all. It makes too little sense to the modern rationality. I would choose, as my leader, the person who has a range of qualities that I consider important. It would feel less rational to me, not more, to think "Well, she's a woman. I don't need to look for qualities, because as a woman, she'll make a better leader than the males". Even if there were widespread belief in the superiority of women over men in a large range of qualities, for most people, it still wouldn't feel more rational to think that way.
|
|
|
|
