RE: female Supremecy (Full Version)

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



Message

PeonForHer -> RE: female Supremecy (1/1/2010 6:39:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

That characterisation only works on paper and in theory.  In practice, 'objective facts' are meaningless without human minds to know that they exist.  It was human minds that invented the concept of 'objective facts' in the first place and humans have always been involved in identifying (or even creating - if you believe the postmodernists) such 'objective facts'. Many (if not most, or even all) of these purported facts are very much influenced by personal feelings. 


So in other words, there are no objective facts? 


That's not my view.  As I said, a judgement that a thing (like the head or the genetic make-up) of person A is bigger than that of person B might be made without it involving the feelings much.  On the other hand, a judgement that A is superior to B unavoidably involves the feelings, because the ideas of superiority and inferiority are inherently value-laden. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
For instance: the the idea and possibility of objectivity in science was once the almost exclusive preserve of men.  Male scientists observed that men's heads were bigger than women's and this explained why men must be more intelligent.  Nowadays, we can see that their minds and their feelings simply made them seek out the 'evidence' that they wanted to find.


quote:

Quite true. And of course, today, with the very same quality of research methods used to explore genetics and the intricacies of the male/Female brain itself, we can deduce that the male brain is on average larger than the Female brain due to the extra neurons needed for control of larger muscle tissue. By that same system, we can also compare male and Female brain structure.


We can, but we can't avoid value judgements - that is to say, bringing our feelings into it - the moment we start talking about superiority and inferiority.  For instance: one day, perhaps, we might finally gather all the evidence (neurological, sociological, whatever) we need to show, conclusively to nearly everyone, that women are less warlike than men.  But that doesn't make women necessarily and objectively better than men.  Clearly - from your own example of Elizabeth I's warlike rule (which, as I've said, hasn't been matched by any English ruler before or since, but of which you seem to approve) such belligerence is praiseworthy so long as it's conducted on a defensive basis. 



XYisInferior -> RE: female Supremecy (1/1/2010 7:06:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea

quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
I've presented the basis for my viewpoints in conjunction with statistics or other available data, as you have requested. I'm not sure about what else I can add for your understanding.


Not quite. Here is the path this portion of the conversation has taken:

quote:

Sea: I mean to describe an approach that is based on reasoning versus on what one wants emotionally.


quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
Analytical / left-brained thought processes can digest FBI crime statistics well enough, can't they? Better yet, they may arrive upon hypothesis based upon those statistics.


quote:

Sea: Sure, cerebral reasoning can draw upon statistical data. However, a reference to statistical data does not by itself make for sound cerebral reasoning. The question remains about whether the reasoning presented follows logically from the statistical data, and whether adequate critical thinking has been applied in evaluating the statistical data.


So you're basically saying I have not shown adequate critical thinking, which is essentially a personal value judgement. As I've said, to connect all the plumbing in a way that would suit you (if there is a way, which I tend to doubt), it would take more time than I'm willing to give. I have presented basis for my reasoning, and linked facts that partially support my reasoning. You have provided little in the way of presentable facts to support your counter claims.

The burden of proof is now upon you to prove my reasoning is faulty, or why drawing social statistical data is wrong in relation to male predisposition toward violent behavior. You also have the lofty challenge of presenting how adjustments in cultural attitudes could shift the statistics on male violence so considerably as to eliminate this phenomenon altogether.



undergroundsea -> RE: female Supremecy (1/1/2010 7:40:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
Actually, children are protected and nurtured by Women foremost, and men protect Women and their children foremost. Both Women and men protect the elderly. Who protects the men? The point is, from a biological perspective, men are more expendable. Again I ask you to disprove this hypothesis. Cerebrally or philosophically. Your choice.


Your hypothesis is that who protects who reflects who is thought to be more superior in society.

Men and, more so with time, women protect the elderly of each sex, children, other women, and other men. If your hypothesis was true, the reality I describe would not exist. Instead, the role of protector is more commonly played by the person who can execute this role effectively, whether by physical ability or by training sought for this role.

Hypothesis disproved.

quote:

The want of power is not in itself an evil, though one must have questioned her designs for the English throne, considering her associations. Though I can't summon Mary and ask what her personal reasons for wanting the throne were, the Babington Plot certainly lends credence to the notion Mary was not alone in her actions.


I do not claim that a want for power is necessarily evil, nor do I suggest that Mary was alone in her action. However, Mary did seek power and is said to have sought assassination of Elizabeth in order to attain this power. This point contradicts your claim that women do not resort to violence, and supports my claim that what you describe as specifically male behavior is instead human behavior practiced by those seeking politics and power.

quote:


While this splinter argument is in reality neither here nor there


The argument is both here and there. It demonstrates that Elizabeth sought a violent removal of her threat both within the law and outside the law in order to preserve her power, which contradicts the point you present and supports the point I present.

quote:

that is entirely speculative, historically, as is admittedly the idea Elizabeth was tricked into signing the death warrant.


Here is a citation from a history text (The London Encyclopedia) that describes Elizabeth's attempt to eliminate Mary (by asking two men to somehow dispose of her) without signing an execution warrant so as to avoid the political fallout: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CXRMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA548&lpg=PA548#v=onepage&q=&f=false.

You are welcome to provide a different citation. Whether Elizabeth was tricked by exaggerating the threat posed by Mary is irrelevant to your point. The point is that when she thought her power was threatened (whether that threat was real or not), she sought a violent solution to eliminate Mary.

quote:

Nonetheless, it is well accepted that Elizabeth did not want to kill Mary. If she did, it would have been fairly easy to assassinate her outright when she initially fled to England.


Elizabeth was reluctant to kill Mary because she feared unwanted political ramifications.

quote:


I've more than indulged your need for facts and metrics from the average reader's perspective, I imagine. I hoped you would reciprocate.


I have lost count of how many of my questions you have left unanswered which would require not even going and assembling others' information, but responding from your own thoughts. You are welcome to do your own research for what racists consider to be the basis for their claim to superiority.

quote:


That book doesn't appear to list "paraphilia" in a pejorative sense. Point of semantics: if you intended to use "paraphilia" according to its greek roots, no issue


I do not use paraphilia as a pejorative term.

quote:

XY:

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
SM leanings and practices have to do with your belief in FS because of the argument you made to justify FS.


Sadomasochism? I would think you'd choose D/s as a more tidy acronym to describe the origin of my Female Superiority beliefs—beliefs of which are beyond D/s, if you care to read my arguments fully.


Below is the text to which I responded. It is you who makes reference to SM leanings but now you object over the use of this term when I simply respond to your question using the word you used.

quote:

Sea:
quote:

XY: All that aside, what do sadomasochistic leanings and practices have to do with my belief in FS, anyway? The point has already been made that "Female is better" extends beyond Collarme and Fetlife forums, and their associated lifestyles.


You argued that because some believe in female superiority, it must be a fact of nature and there must be a force of nature causing this belief. I challenged this argument by saying there are larger populations who hold a different belief, and said that those who believe in FS within BDSM represent a small portion of the population, as do those who believe in FS outside of BDSM. SM leanings and practices have to do with your belief in FS because of the argument you made to justify FS.


quote:


First I'd need to define what amount of F/m and M/f relationships really are in existence today. That is impossible to deduce accurately, even if we all can agree on what constitutes a legitimate M/s relationship. Dip into any "what is the difference between a slave and submissive" thread and one quickly realizes even those who practice this way of life can't agree. Good luck with the metrics, there.


Interpret Fm as BDSM relationships where female dominance is sought, and Mf as a BDSM interest where male dominance is sought. It does not matter whether it is slave or submissive. Online and offline communities show an imbalance between Fm and Mf communities. You do not need to make it as complicated as you describe it. I do, however, recognize that making it so complicated allows evading the question.

quote:

I just don't think the sources you cite are very accurate. Kinsey, even if his work was up to date (which it isn't) didn't focus on D/s much at all. You mention an Australian study, and that's well and good, though Australia is far from representative of the entire world population, don't you think? Did you also notice that a representative sample of people in this study were interviewed by telephone, and the results were determined via a formula of logistic regression (AKA parsimonious sampling)?


Here is the number you cite:

quote:

I do recall a figure close to 50% for both males and Females regarding erotic response to biting, however. Your other numbers from Kinsey seem close. As for the Australian study, I've never heard of it.


You provide no references and question my numbers for which I reference studies done in the academia. You provide a number which seems unrealistic. If one in two persons had an interest in BDSM, BDSMers would not be such a minority. For perspective, we are trying to determine whether the portion of the population that seeks FS for psychosexual reasons is a minority. If the statistic you quote above is of too little significance to make such an estimation, it is not clear to me why you cite it. Tell me your intelligence and intuition lead you to believe this population is not a minority, or give me the basis for why you think so, and I will assemble numbers that disprove your position.

quote:

That aside, I'm not certain why you keep insisting we look only at the BDSM sphere in a discussion about Female Superiority, which this discussion has turned into. Nonetheless, I asked for you to cite statistics to back up a rhetorical global estimate you made, of which you have none (you can only use a sample system based on very limited data).


I am tiring of repeating why the question about the size of the BDSM population, or the size of any population outside of BDSM that believes in FS is relevant. My prior post explains the relevancy created by your attempt to defend your position.

quote:

You would know if you took the time to read the links I provided, especially reading Barbara Migeon's work on X inactivation and immunity benefits of the X chromosome.


First, do you understand the matters you reference, or do you simply know that there are some people saying them and so you repeat them without understanding them? If you understand them, you should be able to provide a synopsis without expecting everyone to do large amounts of reading. They can then seek to further read up on the matter to confirm or dispute your statement.

Second, is the immunity benefit of recombination the same matter as superiority due to a greater number of genes, or are you changing the matter now?

quote:


So it's a certain form of synergy you are looking for. In short, you are a champion of equality and egalitarianism. Well and good, and no great surprise.


When you respond to my argument about synergy by suggesting it is unsubmissive of me to say such a thing, it tells me that you do not have an adequate response.

My ideal BDSM relationship is a romantic BDSM-based companionship that will approach important life decisions jointly as companions. I am content to let occur organically how much the dynamic will have me defer to my partner's judgment. To the extent I do, a large portion of it will come from how I feel about my partner's judgment. And to the extent I do defer, I would not go around telling the rest of the world that they should also do so because my method holds the truth of nature.

Cheers,

Sea



undergroundsea -> RE: female Supremecy (1/1/2010 7:58:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
So you're basically saying I have not shown adequate critical thinking, which is essentially a personal value judgement.


It would be a personal value judgment if I simply made the statement. I have given specific examples of issues your logic does not address, which means it is not a personal value statement but a reasoned statement.

quote:

I have presented basis for my reasoning, and linked facts that partially support my reasoning. You have provided little in the way of presentable facts to support your counter claims.


We have discussed in this thread that simply citing statistics is not a complete argument. The conclusion has to logically follow from the statistics and critical thinking must be employed to examine the data and the variables. You have not done so and I have given specific examples of oversight. I have pointed out that your own reference is not consistent with your claim. Your assertion is incorrect.

quote:

The burden of proof is now upon you to prove my reasoning is faulty, or why drawing social statistical data is wrong in relation to male predisposition toward violent behavior. You also have the lofty challenge of presenting how adjustments in cultural attitudes could shift the statistics on male violence so considerably as to eliminate this phenomenon altogether.


I have delivered the burden of proof by identifying weakpoints of your argument, giving counterexamples, and explaining why the logic is faulty.

It is not my responsibility to explain how adjustments in cultural attitudes could shift the statistics on male violence. Still, my responses to you show examples of how culture influences the tendency for violence, and those examples hold information about what could be done, details of which I will leave for a more suitable conversation.

Cheers,

Sea



XYisInferior -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 12:23:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
Your hypothesis is that who protects who reflects who is thought to be more superior in society.


I'm illustrating that males are commonly put in harm's way far more than Females.


quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
Men and, more so with time, women protect the elderly of each sex, children, other women, and other men. If your hypothesis was true, the reality I describe would not exist. Instead, the role of protector is more commonly played by the person who can execute this role effectively, whether by physical ability or by training sought for this role.

Hypothesis disproved.


So say you. This response does not disprove the hypothesis that males are more expendable at all. You are just making another hypothesis on what you suspect will be a balance of sex ratio in high-risk jobs. Again, using Warren Farrell's observations, is it obvious that Women are not filling high security risk jobs at even half the rate men are, and it has taken a tremendous amount of argumentation to allow Women to be placed in these dangerous jobs in the first place—argumentation, I might add, that is still ongoing (at least in my country). What are the reasons why women are not easily allowed in direct ground combat? Why are they not rapidly filling carpentry or iron worker jobs? It is all just societal construct or a natural occupational selection the sexes make in a society that has been for the most part open to the notion of equality and meritocracy?



quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
Here is a citation from a history text (The London Encyclopedia) that describes Elizabeth's attempt to eliminate Mary (by asking two men to somehow dispose of her) without signing an execution warrant so as to avoid the political fallout: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CXRMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA548&lpg=PA548#v=onepage&q=&f=false.


Fair point, Sea, and well done.



quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
I have lost count of how many of my questions you have left unanswered which would require not even going and assembling others' information, but responding from your own thoughts.


I thought I was relaying them in conjunction to statistical data. My case has been put forward rather simply. I have in turn asked you for metrics and statistics—rather than philosophic conjecture—that disprove my reasoning. Thus far, I haven't seen too much, outside of an unbalanced focus on SM statistics derived from Kinsey studies, which has nothing to do with my overall arguments about male social violence, neuronal differences between the sexes, genetic comparisons or assertions of reproductive value.



quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
Here is the text to which I responded. It is you who makes reference to SM leanings


No, actually it was you who introduced "SM" by citing Kinsey and the very economic Australian study, which discuss SM activites. Even if my argument were solely focused around BDSM, it would be more in D/s terms than SM terms, I can certainly say.



quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
Interpret Fm as BDSM relationships where female dominance is sought, and Mf as a BDSM interest where male dominance is sought. It does not matter whether it is slave or submissive. Online and offline communities show an imbalance between Fm and Mf communities. You do not need to make it as complicated as you describe it. I do, however, recognize that making it so complicated allows evading the question.


Projection alert. It is you who ultimately assumes ideas about Female Supremacy are nothing more than "psychosexual" and essentially constructions of fetish. That is essentially how this conversation between you and I got started. I invited you to comment on those who view FS beyond BDSM / fetish construction. You directed BDSM and M/s into the discussion in post #66, nonetheless. I provided you my more detailed thoughts on those worshipful dynamics in post #67, though I suspect you went a little too far in assuming my answer represented my feelings on all men and Women, I suspect (as further evidenced in post #79). Since you seemed to be making a fetish of metrics (at least ones that I had to provide to back up my beliefs) for a cerebral argument, I challenged you to do the same with your claim that based upon statistical evidence, that there are more of each—men and women—who do not have such a belief. I neither denied or supported that claim, if you cared to notice. I just invited you to play by the same rules. You have since admitted that at best you were guessing using outdated or sampled data from Australia using involvement in "sadomasochism" as a study subject.

Secondly, you presented a question to me in post #90 regarding what my thoughts were on the percentage of M/f vs. F/m were, hence, the response that even if were were able to properly define and measure M/s relationships in the BDSM subculture marbled throughout the populace (which we can't), it really has no substantive bearing on this conversation about Female Superiority. That is in fact staying on point with the broader picture. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was not willful on your part, but a mistake in communication.

quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
You provide a number which seems unrealistic. If one in two persons had an interest in BDSM, BDSMers would not be such a minority. I have to wonder if you read a survey taken on a BDSM site.


Actually, you can find a link to the erotic reaction to biting mentioned here http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-data.html#sadomasochism. (p. 677-8, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female). No surveys taken on a BDSM website, oh ye of little faith!


quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
However you respond, remember we are trying to determine whether the portion of the population that seeks FS for psychosexual reasons is a minority.


Really? I was not aware that was the mission statement at all. In fact, I tend to recall stating strongly at the beginning of this thread that not all of us believe in Female Supremacy for psychosexual reasons alone. I've further gone on to state that many who believe "Female is better" don't put it in D/s trappings at all.


quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
I am tiring of repeating why the question about the size of the BDSM population, or the size of any population outside of BDSM that believes in FS is relevant. My prior post explains the relevancy created by your attempt to defend your position.


You mean the position you misinterpreted? The obvious flaw here is that you still assume my argument is based in BDSM land, which it really isn't. My choice to worship the Female I am with is personal—not a global mandate. Any comments I make to this end describe ideals and observations of this dynamic as I see them in F/m relationships.




quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
First, do you understand the matters you reference, or do you simply know that there are some people saying them and so you repeat them without understanding them? If you understand them, you should be able to provide a synopsis without expecting everyone to do large amounts of reading. They can then seek to further read up on the matter to confirm or dispute your statement.


I've spent a large amount of time reading about the genetic aspects of X inactivation and mosaicism in the Female chromosome. I've provided you some very good leads and key terms. You seem to be a fairly intelligent fellow, and should know how to google a book title and synopsis in the very least. Nonetheless, to put it in very basic terms, Females benefit from having two copies of a complete X chromosome. The second (inactive) X acts as a back-up in the event of DNA damage on the first. Males do not have this same benefit, as their second chromosome is a Y, which contains very few functioning genes outside of determining maleness. It appears you now have some reading to do now, anyway, and can stop with insulting insinuations.


quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
When you respond to my argument about synergy by suggesting it is unsubmissive of me to say such a thing, it tells me that you do not have an adequate response.

I was doing nothing of the sort. I was, however, pointing out that you place greater value in an egalitarian society. That says nothing about your personal choices regarding submission. Please don't take my arguments here as a personal attack against you. It would seem you are, however.


quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
My ideal BDSM relationship is a romantic BDSM-based companionship that will approach important life decisions jointly as companions. I am content to let occur organically how much the dynamic will have me defer to my partner's judgment. To the extent I do, a large portion of it will come from how I feel about my partner's judgment. And to the extent I do defer, I would not go around telling the rest of the world that they should also do so because my method holds the truth of nature.


Pretty rhetorical invention, yet again, and it's getting more difficult to believe it's not purposefully so. What's strange is how you still don't seem to get that I'm not on a mission to convert the world to my beliefs, but explain them.




XYisInferior -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 12:39:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Clearly - from your own example of Elizabeth I's warlike rule (which, as I've said, hasn't been matched by any English ruler before or since, but of which you seem to approve) such belligerence is praiseworthy so long as it's conducted on a defensive basis. 


For the record, my mention of Elizabeth was simply to point out that the rule of a Queen or Empress here or there throughout history isn't going to change what is a male dominated world with male dominated customs. I used the example of Akhenaten's short-lived monotheism in a similar vein to demonstrate that going against the tide is very tough. In fact, it is often very dangerous for your health.




Lucienne -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 5:22:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
quote:

ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
My ideal BDSM relationship is a romantic BDSM-based companionship that will approach important life decisions jointly as companions. I am content to let occur organically how much the dynamic will have me defer to my partner's judgment. To the extent I do, a large portion of it will come from how I feel about my partner's judgment. And to the extent I do defer, I would not go around telling the rest of the world that they should also do so because my method holds the truth of nature.


Pretty rhetorical invention, yet again, and it's getting more difficult to believe it's not purposefully so. What's strange is how you still don't seem to get that I'm not on a mission to convert the world to my beliefs, but explain them.



Is the disinterest of women in engaging in this lengthy debate more anecdotal evidence of female superiority? ;)

XY, I don't think the objection is that you're trying to convert the world to share your beliefs. It's that your beliefs are full of value judgments trying to disguise themselves as a form of biological determinism. Although your conclusions are intended to be positive about women, your arguments sound a lot like the nonsense that evolutionary psych hobbyists like to toss around as a justification for every bit of patriarchal bs in society.

A more scientific and rational approach involves making an effort to restrain the desire to incorporate value judgments into your analysis. For the sake of argument, I'll agree that males are more expendable than females in terms of the survival of the species. Ok. Fine. So what? The species isn't exactly in imminent danger of extinction. What reasoned actions should follow from accepting your hypothesis as true? It seems to me that to the extent to which it is naturally true it will take care of itself naturally. What is the point and or value of concluding that women are superior because they are less expendable than men?

Lastly, all this talk of Elizabeth, can we at least all agree that Fanny Ardant was really hot as Mary of Guise in the movie Elizabeth?



PeonForHer -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 6:25:34 AM)

I thought I was relaying them in conjunction to statistical data. My case has been put forward rather simply. I have in turn asked you for metrics and statistics—rather than philosophic conjecture—that disprove my reasoning.
 
Inferior, herein lies the problem and, for me, the fundamental reason why these arguments between yourself and (almost all) others always go around in circles.  You take it for granted that your idea of 'hard science' just must trump any other kind of knowledge.  You say, over and over again, 'I have facts.  Disprove them with other facts!'.  Time and again you've been told 'Your facts aren't relevant - they don't support your claim'.  You are told that your philosophical bases are flawed, but you simply sweep away such arguments as trivial.  They're 'Only philosphical ideas - where's the proper knowledge - the metrics, the statistics?'. 

But it was philosophy that established this Descartian dualism - from which sprang the idea that facts can always ultimately be value-free - in the first place.  The idea had tremendous advantages but it's now accepted by most that it was hideously, disastrously flawed, too.  One of its greatest flaws was that it helped generations of headbangers to dump their dogma on the rest of us - precisely because it insisted on talking about 'objective facts' that, because they were 'objective facts', the rest of us had to accept. 

Jeez.  Hitler's scientists said that we live in a 'dog-eat-dog' world.  Darwinism got turned into 'social darwinism'.  That was just how nature was - it's 'objective fact and here's the biology to prove it'.  Therefore human society has no choice but to work the same way. 

Why would any of us want any more of this sort of crap? 



hardbodysub -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 8:06:46 AM)

Facts and data: 1+2 = 3; 3 out of 4 dentists recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum.
Conclusion: giraffes are better long-term companions than armoires.

If you disagree, you must show me how my facts and data are wrong by presenting contradictory data. You can't dispute my conclusion in any other way. Questioning my logic is merely philosophical conjecture.



XYisInferior -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 8:53:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
Is the disinterest of women in engaging in this lengthy debate more anecdotal evidence of female superiority? ;)


It may very well be. ;-)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
XY, I don't think the objection is that you're trying to convert the world to share your beliefs.


Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
It's that your beliefs are full of value judgments trying to disguise themselves as a form of biological determinism.


I am not a strict biological determinist. Though I do give much credence to the nature side, I am fully aware of the nurture side, too. I never get to talk too much about that, however, as most of my posting focus is spent explaining what facts I have to support my argument, why they are relevant, etc.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
A more scientific and rational approach involves making an effort to restrain the desire to incorporate value judgments into your analysis.


I never claimed to be a career scientist, and I will (again) openly admit my judgments are value-based upon facts and observations that are relevant to me. It's when those facts are challenged that I ask for counter data disproving them (which seldom comes).


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
For the sake of argument, I'll agree that males are more expendable than females in terms of the survival of the species. Ok. Fine. So what? The species isn't exactly in imminent danger of extinction. What reasoned actions should follow from accepting your hypothesis as true?


Well, obviously we should cull the male population and leave one male for every ten that are alive. That will effectively reduce negative male influence upon society.

But seriously, why do actions need to be taken regarding that assertion? This is a discussion about the validity of my beliefs in FS.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
What is the point and or value of concluding that women are superior because they are less expendable than men?


Conversely, I can ask what is the point of ignoring it? It's merely an observation made that partially supports my beliefs. Male expendability is an observation that supports my beliefs, but is not solely where my argument lies. For instance, I have brought up empathetic reasoning of the Female and the social violence of the male as well in this thread.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
Lastly, all this talk of Elizabeth, can we at least all agree that Fanny Ardant was really hot as Mary of Guise in the movie Elizabeth?


Lol, agreed.



XYisInferior -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 8:55:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I thought I was relaying them in conjunction to statistical data. My case has been put forward rather simply. I have in turn asked you for metrics and statistics—rather than philosophic conjecture—that disprove my reasoning.
 
Inferior, herein lies the problem and, for me, the fundamental reason why these arguments between yourself and (almost all) others always go around in circles.  You take it for granted that your idea of 'hard science' just must trump any other kind of knowledge.  You say, over and over again, 'I have facts.  Disprove them with other facts!'.  Time and again you've been told 'Your facts aren't relevant - they don't support your claim'.  You are told that your philosophical bases are flawed, but you simply sweep away such arguments as trivial.  They're 'Only philosphical ideas - where's the proper knowledge - the metrics, the statistics?'. 


It is in fact the case quite often that I am asked to facts or now "metrics" to support my beliefs. When I present them, they are then assumed to be either "psuedoscience" or "irrelevant". I think you've used both those terms in our history on this subject, if I recall correctly. I openly admit my beliefs are value-based. What perhaps you in turn fail to see is that deeming something irrelevant, however, is likewise a value judgment, at best.



XYisInferior -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 8:56:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub

Facts and data: 1+2 = 3; 3 out of 4 dentists recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum.
Conclusion: giraffes are better long-term companions than armoires.

If you disagree, you must show me how my facts and data are wrong by presenting contradictory data. You can't dispute my conclusion in any other way. Questioning my logic is merely philosophical conjecture.


How's that research on the default pathway going? [:D]



Lucienne -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 9:48:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
For the sake of argument, I'll agree that males are more expendable than females in terms of the survival of the species. Ok. Fine. So what? The species isn't exactly in imminent danger of extinction. What reasoned actions should follow from accepting your hypothesis as true?


Well, obviously we should cull the male population and leave one male for every ten that are alive. That will effectively reduce negative male influence upon society.


My first thought was something along the lines of the carbon offsets, except for penises!  If you want to be in the business of producing penises, you need to pay society up front to compensate for the inevitable costs that would otherwise be externalized.

(Yes, of course I'm joking. I don't think any measures should be taken to reduce the number of penises in the world.)



PeonForHer -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 11:51:07 AM)

I openly admit my beliefs are value-based. What perhaps you in turn fail to see is that deeming something irrelevant, however, is likewise a value judgment, at best.
 
No, it isn't.  It's a logically-based argument.  For me, your female-supremacist views are based on the same sort of fallacious assumptions that make it apparently acceptable to open, for instance, the following debate:

"Which is the superior animal - the gorilla or the orang-utan?  Answer using only objective facts." 

Do you not see?  It's intuitively a stupid question and isn't, in any case, answerable within those parameters.  Two examples:

First: If (big 'if') it could be shown that females are so much less warlike then males that they'll be less likely to be belligerent as leaders in society, then we will, at least, have moved some way beyond biological determinism.  But that still doesn't get us anywhere useful.  We'd still be left with having to show that the value of non-aggressiveness is always and everywhere 'better'.  As you implied with Elizabeth I, that might not always be the case. 

Second: the matter of empathy.  This is a value that was once felt to be of much less importance to humanity as a whole.  In fact, it was once seen as a major disadvantage.  Jean Jacques Rousseau, a founder of liberal political philosophy and one of the chief thinkers of the French Revolution, believed that women should never be involved in the running of society because they would always put family before society - such was the level of their love for - and empathy with - their near kin. 

We've learned to elevate the quality of empathy since those days - but that's just the point: will we always see it as so desirable?  What's more, is it always so desirable, in all situations, even today?  Unless you can say 'yes' to such questions, you cannot begin to talk about 'superiority' . . . .

Finally, even if we could show that women as a whole are less belligerent and more empathic than men as a whole, and that these are objectively desirable qualities, true for all people, all times and all places . . .  we're still left with the problem that, so far, we've been talking in terms of aggregates.  We don't have a body of ideas about female supremacy that can be operationalised - made into reality in human society.  We'd never be in a position to say that woman A just must be better than man B at this or that leadership role simply because she's a woman.  That really would be akin to saying that this white person must be better than that black person at leadership role simply because of his/her whiteness.  It's repugnant both in terms of facts (because whatever differences there are between races have been shown to be only slight, if existent at all) but also because it's a very basic offence to our sense of ethics.

It's offensive to our ethics because thinking in terms of the superiority of group A of humans over group B is anathema to our ethical individualism - that is, the kind of ethical assumptions that most of us now hold, and have held for centuries.  By this, I mean that we consider it crucial to think about the goodness or badness (or the superiority and inferiority) of people in terms of individuals - never, ever, groups.  The failure to do that was always the most fundamental flaw behind racist thinking.  For me, it's also the most fundamental flaw behind female-supremacist thinking. 

If you can see your way past that last flaw, then please show how it can be done.  I can't, personally, see how it can work.  All I know for certain is that biological evidence is almost certainly going to be utterly inadequate to the task.  It would need philosophy - and a blindingly new and brilliant kind of philosophy, at that.



XYisInferior -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 2:22:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
No, it isn't. It's a logically-based argument.


Who's logic?


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
For me, your female-supremacist views are based on the same sort of fallacious assumptions that make it apparently acceptable to open, for instance, the following debate.


Consider your disclaimer of "for me". Before we proceed any further into your text below, you are openly acknowledging—and rightly so—that your logic is not universal, that is it personalized. Yet you persist in asserting previously that my arguments must be invalid via ad populum.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
"Which is the superior animal - the gorilla or the orang-utan?  Answer using only objective facts." 

Do you not see?  It's intuitively a stupid question and isn't, in any case, answerable within those parameters. 


Probably as your above reasoning appears to be a hybrid of red herring and straw man fallacy: an irrelevant or invented topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original argument to a misrepresented version of that position.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
First: If (big 'if')


Why this suggestion? Domestic violence, rape and crime statistics have no bearing on proving inherent aggression? It takes greater wishful thinking to believe these studies do not rather than do, and (I know you hate me asking for this) but I'd like to see a credible source that refutes the data I have presented to support that argument.



quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
(if) it could be shown that females are so much less warlike then males that they'll be less likely to be belligerent as leaders in society, then we will, at least, have moved some way beyond biological determinism.  But that still doesn't get us anywhere useful.  We'd still be left with having to show that the value of non-aggressiveness is always and everywhere 'better'.  As you implied with Elizabeth I, that might not always be the case. 


Then I would expect a logical argument to show me how empathetic reasoning, especially in light of today's trends in research about leadership, is not validly positive.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Second: the matter of empathy.  This is a value that was once felt to be of much less importance to humanity as a whole.  In fact, it was once seen as a major disadvantage. 


The key word here is "once". The past and present is not the same place, of course. History has its use, but to imply my reasoning is exactly the same as another's in the past is tough to prove, considering the past—its contexts and the people in it—are no more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Jean Jacques Rousseau, a founder of liberal political philosophy and one of the chief thinkers of the French Revolution, believed that women should never be involved in the running of society because they would always put family before society - such was the level of their love for - and empathy with - their near kin. We've learned to elevate the quality of empathy since those days - but that's just the point: will we always see it as so desirable?  What's more, is it always so desirable, in all situations, even today?  Unless you can say 'yes' to such questions, you cannot begin to talk about 'superiority' . . . .


To define empathy, first: the ability to understand and share the feelings and experiences of others. Curiously, I'd like to know where empathy may not be desirable in handling social situations of today or the future, for that matter. Systemic reasoning—and that's putting it mildly—is dubious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Finally, even if we could show that women as a whole are less belligerent and more empathic than men as a whole, and that these are objectively desirable qualities, true for all people, all times and all places . . .  we're still left with the problem that, so far, we've been talking in terms of aggregates. 


Well of course. Aggregates between two examples are being used, as outliers are present in nearly any model. I admit that men and Women vary considerably, though I have found the more positive qualities discussed in this thread to be the realm of the Female, overall.



quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
We'd never be in a position to say that woman A just must be better than man B at this or that leadership role simply because she's a woman. 


Actually, business and psychoanylitical studies are starting to say essentially that empathetic reasoning appears more productive, and that such reasoning is overall more Female-oriented. From my own personal experiences in private and professional life, I have naturally come to that conclusion, too.



quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
That really would be akin to saying that this white person must be better than that black person at leadership role simply because of his/her whiteness. 


I can see the emotional reasons why you'd say that, but in evidence of statistical and scientific research into the differences between male and Female brains and thought/decision making analysis, comparing my argument to racist propaganda is bad company logic. These differences I speak of are reflected in male and Female, despite ethnicity.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
It's a very basic offence to our sense of ethics.

Your argument, from my point of view, would be better served speaking on an individual basis, as in how you opened your response. It is fallacious to speak for all, and is again an example of an ad populum flaw in your logic, which you inferred originally as critically sound of all fallacies, I might add.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
All I know for certain is that biological evidence is almost certainly going to be utterly inadequate to the task.  It would need philosophy - and a blindingly new and brilliant kind of philosophy, at that.


I agree. Your call to an insightful and equally palatable philosophic treatise on the matter is bold, but the idea has its merit. While you will not be seeing any such exhaustive literary effort coming from me in this thread, it stands to reason that facts will inevitably be used to support the basis for a philosophy. Drawing together the facts previously discussed (and others not touched upon in this thread), one may perhaps see the constellation points of the work, or a hint toward realizing a skeleton for it. Or not. My presence in this thread is to help explain basic beliefs I and others may have and incorporate into their personal lives.



XYisInferior -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 2:27:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne

quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucienne
For the sake of argument, I'll agree that males are more expendable than females in terms of the survival of the species. Ok. Fine. So what? The species isn't exactly in imminent danger of extinction. What reasoned actions should follow from accepting your hypothesis as true?


Well, obviously we should cull the male population and leave one male for every ten that are alive. That will effectively reduce negative male influence upon society.


My first thought was something along the lines of the carbon offsets, except for penises!  If you want to be in the business of producing penises, you need to pay society up front to compensate for the inevitable costs that would otherwise be externalized.

(Yes, of course I'm joking. I don't think any measures should be taken to reduce the number of penises in the world.)



But think of how much less aggravation there would be with so many less toilet seats left up. I bet I sold you know.



PeonForHer -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 4:44:42 PM)

Inferior,

I'm trying to move you into the realms of philosophy - because I think you urgently need to move that way - but we don't seem to get even as far as first base.


quote:

ORIGINAL: XYisInferior

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
No, it isn't. It's a logically-based argument.


Who's logic?


It's the logic of philosophers, in general, ever since David Hume and the earliest days of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
For me, your female-supremacist views are based on the same sort of fallacious assumptions that make it apparently acceptable to open, for instance, the following debate.


quote:

Consider your disclaimer of "for me". Before we proceed any further into your text below, you are openly acknowledging—and rightly so—that your logic is not universal, that is it personalized. Yet you persist in asserting previously that my arguments must be invalid via ad populum.


'For me' has more to do with humility in expression than anything else.  Logic is hardly ever universal anyway.  I don't know what you mean by 'my arguments must be invalid via ad populum': I'm not sure how this phrase is even relevant.   'Ad populum' is only relevant if I were saying that a) your argument is must be wrong because so few people agree with it or b) it must be right because so many people agree with it.  I've not said the former and I sure in hell haven't said the latter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
"Which is the superior animal - the gorilla or the orang-utan?  Answer using only objective facts." 

Do you not see?  It's intuitively a stupid question and isn't, in any case, answerable within those parameters. 


quote:

Probably as your above reasoning appears to be a hybrid of red herring and straw man fallacy: an irrelevant or invented topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original argument to a misrepresented version of that position.


No, it is not irrelevant.  If it were, why would I keep trying to use it with you?  It's meant to show you a point - in the simplest way I can think of - that you seem resistant at getting: that you can't come to a conclusion about A being superior to B without making your own judgements as to what constitutes superior and inferior.  It isn't something that can be done with mere 'facts'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
First: If (big 'if')


quote:

Why this suggestion? Domestic violence, rape and crime statistics have no bearing on proving inherent aggression? It takes greater wishful thinking to believe these studies do not rather than do, and (I know you hate me asking for this) but I'd like to see a credible source that refutes the data I have presented to support that argument.


I'd prefer you to quote the whole sentence where this affects the meaning.  I actually said, with emphasis, too: 

"First: If (big 'if') it could be shown that females are so much less warlike then males that they'll be less likely to be belligerent as leaders in society"   I was specifically thinking of national leaders - like Elizabeth I, who took England to war more than any other of our national leaders before or since. 

As I think you're accepting now, society brings its own forces to bear.  We live in a violent society.  I'm sure you know that the incidence of violent crimes amongst women is increasing.  Why is this so?  (Surely, if women are having more say in society - their power to get their way is increasing - then violent crime would be decreasing - per their neurological/genetic/olfactory/whatever -biologically-based greater natural empathy?  Just a question that's popped into my head . . .)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
(if) it could be shown that females are so much less warlike then males that they'll be less likely to be belligerent as leaders in society, then we will, at least, have moved some way beyond biological determinism.  But that still doesn't get us anywhere useful.  We'd still be left with having to show that the value of non-aggressiveness is always and everywhere 'better'.  As you implied with Elizabeth I, that might not always be the case. 


quote:

Then I would expect a logical argument to show me how empathetic reasoning, especially in light of today's trends in research about leadership, is not validly positive.


It is validly positive in lots of areas.  But not all.  It isn't validly positive when, as you remarked earlier with regard to Elizabeth I, a country needs to defend itself.  (If, indeed, she was acting defensively, per your apology for her belligerence.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Second: the matter of empathy.  This is a value that was once felt to be of much less importance to humanity as a whole.  In fact, it was once seen as a major disadvantage. 


quote:

The key word here is "once". The past and present is not the same place, of course. History has its use, but to imply my reasoning is exactly the same as another's in the past is tough to prove, considering the past—its contexts and the people in it—are no more.


My point is that if it changed once in history, it could change again.  Your reasoning would, however, be exactly the same as many of those in the past (and present) if you were to assume that history always 'moves forward'.  It doesn't.  Or, at least, it didn't appear to move forward, to many people, when Stalin unleashed his terror nor when the 3rd Reich grew up in the 1930's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Jean Jacques Rousseau, a founder of liberal political philosophy and one of the chief thinkers of the French Revolution, believed that women should never be involved in the running of society because they would always put family before society - such was the level of their love for - and empathy with - their near kin. We've learned to elevate the quality of empathy since those days - but that's just the point: will we always see it as so desirable?  What's more, is it always so desirable, in all situations, even today?  Unless you can say 'yes' to such questions, you cannot begin to talk about 'superiority' . . . .


quote:

To define empathy, first: the ability to understand and share the feelings and experiences of others. Curiously, I'd like to know where empathy may not be desirable in handling social situations of today or the future, for that matter. Systemic reasoning—and that's putting it mildly—is dubious.


I'm not sure where to start with this.  Would you want a defensive military general who is so sharing of the feelings of his 'family' - the soldiers serving under him - that he'll refuse ever to send them into battle?  Against a Hitler, for instance?  When your car has broken down, would you ring someone who will share your tears with you, or will you get someone who'll fix it?  Should a paramedic, a nurse or a doctor feel your pain, or is she better off not feeling it?  Would you want jurors who share their friends' hatred of 'perverts' so much that they'll convict a kinkster for something he didn't do - and 'dry detective reasoning be damned'?  And to go back to JJ Rousseau: would you want a president who'll sacrifice the nation for his own family? 

Now, I haven't come to firm conclusions on any of these (or a million other questions) yet, regarding this 'empathy' - but therein lies the difficulty.  Specifically, 'empathy' is a soft and woolly sort of word, thus far.  It hasn't been interrogated nearly so much, over so many centuries, as has - for instance - the words 'reason' and 'logic'.  How does empathy work?  Are there different kinds of empathy?  What are the limits of the uses of empathy? 

To give one example: there's an argument raging, amongst a certain little group of people - environmental philosophers - about what habit of mind, exactly, is needed to defend the Earth's future.  One group vaunts empathy: if we feel what the animal feels, we'll defend it, they say.  Another group says 'No.  Forget empathy - it only works with those humans or animals to which we feel warm.  That is: other humans, or animals that look and act the most 'human'. Empathy isn't reliable for a 'thing' that can't easily be anthropomorphised - like an entire ecosystem.  That you have to see as a complex, delicate machine.  The problem is actually too much empathy - with people of today, the surroundings that feel close in distance and time. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Finally, even if we could show that women as a whole are less belligerent and more empathic than men as a whole, and that these are objectively desirable qualities, true for all people, all times and all places . . .  we're still left with the problem that, so far, we've been talking in terms of aggregates. 


quote:

Well of course. Aggregates between two examples are being used, as outliers are present in nearly any model. I admit that men and Women vary considerably, though I have found the more positive qualities discussed in this thread to be the realm of the Female, overall.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
We'd never be in a position to say that woman A just must be better than man B at this or that leadership role simply because she's a woman. 


quote:


Actually, business and psychoanylitical studies are starting to say essentially that empathetic reasoning appears more productive, and that such reasoning is overall more Female-oriented. From my own personal experiences in private and professional life, I have naturally come to that conclusion, too.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
That really would be akin to saying that this white person must be better than that black person at leadership role simply because of his/her whiteness. 


quote:

I can see the emotional reasons why you'd say that, but in evidence of statistical and scientific research into the differences between male and Female brains and thought/decision making analysis, comparing my argument to racist propaganda is bad company logic. These differences I speak of are reflected in male and Female, despite ethnicity.


You're not grasping my point here.  I'm not talking about women versus men, as groups.  It's talking about black people versus white people as groups that is the beginning-fault of racism.  Likewise it's talking about men versus women as groups that is the central problem with female supremacy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
It's a very basic offence to our sense of ethics.


quote:

Your argument, from my point of view, would be better served speaking on an individual basis, as in how you opened your response. It is fallacious to speak for all, and is again an example of an ad populum flaw in your logic, which you inferred originally as critically sound of all fallacies, I might add.


Presumably, you think it's fine to build a social system on the basis of one group being superior to another group - in all cases?  If you had a Dalai Lama and a Margaret Thatcher in front of you, applying for a job that demanded a lot of empathy, you'd pick Margaret Thatcher because she was a woman - ergo, she's bound to be more empathic?  If these propositions strike you as ludicrous, then I'd suggest that you, too, share the conception of individualistic ethics.  On the other hand, if you don't, you might well find yourself in the same company as Mr Hitler - who always 'knew' that in any given role (except, perhaps, slavery, singing and boxing) whites do better than blacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
All I know for certain is that biological evidence is almost certainly going to be utterly inadequate to the task.  It would need philosophy - and a blindingly new and brilliant kind of philosophy, at that.


quote:

I agree. Your call to an insightful and equally palatable philosophic treatise on the matter is bold, but the idea has its merit. While you will not be seeing any such exhaustive literary effort coming from me in this thread, it stands to reason that facts will inevitably be used to support the basis for a philosophy. Drawing together the facts previously discussed (and others not touched upon in this thread), one may perhaps see the constellation points of the work, or a hint toward realizing a skeleton for it. Or not. My presence in this thread is to help explain basic beliefs I and others may have and incorporate into their personal lives.


Perhaps I'm unconsciously thrown by your nickname.  "XYisInferior" looks like a propaganda statement to me. 

Still, fair enough, and I'll take you at your word.  Mind you, I wouldn't need to focus upon objective facts to support my feelings of 'her superior, me inferior' in a relationship.  This is not least because I know damned well such a reaction in me will have far more to do with utterly inane things like the shape of her nose  - and a bunch of feelings in me whose provenance of which I have only the haziest understanding.

One last thing for me on this subject and this thread, though: there were reasons, to do with power and control, why the idea of 'objective facts' became so popular so quickly, amongst men almost exclusively, all those centuries ago.  These reasons are worth investigating.  Best to be wary about using the devil's tools, I think.



XYisInferior -> RE: female Supremecy (1/2/2010 10:20:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
'For me' has more to do with humility in expression than anything else.  Logic is hardly ever universal anyway. 


Indeed. Thank you for verifying that.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
No, it is not irrelevant.  If it were, why would I keep trying to use it with you?  It's meant to show you a point - in the simplest way I can think of - that you seem resistant at getting: that you can't come to a conclusion about A being superior to B without making your own judgements as to what constitutes superior and inferior.  It isn't something that can be done with mere 'facts'.


Where have I ever said the facts stand alone in this debate? I have expressed several times that I employ those facts to form my beliefs. That in itself seems a notion you may be resistant at getting, in turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

As I think you're accepting now, society brings its own forces to bear.  We live in a violent society.  I'm sure you know that the incidence of violent crimes amongst women is increasing.  Why is this so?  (Surely, if women are having more say in society - their power to get their way is increasing - then violent crime would be decreasing - per their neurological/genetic/olfactory/whatever -biologically-based greater natural empathy?  Just a question that's popped into my head . . .)


Male violence is still dramatically—enormously—higher. But in skipping over that: while I can't speak for things across the pond, in the United States, though crime overall has gradually risen since the 1960s, it has decreased sharply by over 43% since 1991. You can reference these facts at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

Approximately 70% of prisoners in the United States are non-Whites. Further, in work place killings, roughly 27% of offenders are Black out of a total African American population of about 13%. How does an estimate of work place killings such as this represent "more say in society"? Similarly, while female violence is slightly higher, how can you attribute this to "more say in society"? This seems like an unsubstantiated correlation you're making for the sake of this argument, I suspect. If anything, violence increases with poor familial and social conditions, not improved distributed wealth and civil betterment. Nonetheless, the majority of offenders in any metric are males.

A Cambridge University study was made regarding the predictors of violence in male youths, as most violent crimes are committed by males. It identified the following as predictors of violent crime: biological and individual factors, family characteristics and social factors. Among other researched factors in various studies, animal testing showed a strong link between high levels of testosterone and aggressive behavior.



quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

My point is that if it changed once in history, it could change again.  Your reasoning would, however, be exactly the same as many of those in the past (and present) if you were to assume that history always 'moves forward'.  It doesn't.  Or, at least, it didn't appear to move forward, to many people, when Stalin unleashed his terror nor when the 3rd Reich grew up in the 1930's.


Perhaps this isn't worth mentioning, but I couldn't help but consider how those examples are entirely born of patriarchal militarism.



quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I'm not sure where to start with this.  Would you want a defensive military general who is so sharing of the feelings of his 'family' - the soldiers serving under him - that he'll refuse ever to send them into battle?  Against a Hitler, for instance?  When your car has broken down, would you ring someone who will share your tears with you, or will you get someone who'll fix it?  Should a paramedic, a nurse or a doctor feel your pain, or is she better off not feeling it?  Would you want jurors who share their friends' hatred of 'perverts' so much that they'll convict a kinkster for something he didn't do - and 'dry detective reasoning be damned'?  And to go back to JJ Rousseau: would you want a president who'll sacrifice the nation for his own family? 


This feels like a characterized distorition of what empathetic reasoning entails, and the logical fallacy in this argument seems fairly clear. Since empathetic reasoning involves how one's actions affect the experiences and well being of others and in relation to oneself, would there even be a Hitler in the first place?


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
That really would be akin to saying that this white person must be better than that black person at leadership role simply because of his/her whiteness. 


Incorrect, if you'd take the time to go beyond philosophy and study the science behind physical differences in male and Female brains. For this reason, the racial connotation doesn't fit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
You're not grasping my point here.  I'm not talking about women versus men, as groups.  It's talking about black people versus white people as groups that is the beginning-fault of racism.  Likewise it's talking about men versus women as groups that is the central problem with female supremacy.


Well, I don't know how to say it any more delicately, but male and Female are demonstrably different, and not just on the outside. Therefore, you have two groups, whether you wish to accept it or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Presumably, you think it's fine to build a social system on the basis of one group being superior to another group - in all cases?
 

I never said in all cases. You (understandably) perhaps didn't see my earlier posts in this thread. Regardless, you misunderstand the nature of my point. Ad Populum means essentially:

Most people are in favor of X
Therefore, X must be true


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Perhaps I'm unconsciously thrown by your nickname.  "XYisInferior" looks like a propaganda statement to me. 


LOL, of course it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Still, fair enough, and I'll take you at your word.  Mind you, I wouldn't need to focus upon objective facts to support my feelings of 'her superior, me inferior' in a relationship.  This is not least because I know damned well such a reaction in me will have far more to do with utterly inane things like the shape of her nose  - and a bunch of feelings in me whose provenance of which I have only the haziest understanding.


Nicely stated. You touch upon something here we don't have words for yet. Somehow "psychosexual" just doesn't seem to cut it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
One last thing for me on this subject and this thread, though: there were reasons, to do with power and control, why the idea of 'objective facts' became so popular so quickly, amongst men almost exclusively, all those centuries ago.  These reasons are worth investigating.  Best to be wary about using the devil's tools, I think.


Trust in that I have actually taken your points into consideration. Nonetheless, we all must use something to build our beliefs and ideas, and of mine, facts are a portion of the repertoire.



marshalp -> RE: female Supremecy (1/3/2010 9:54:31 PM)

Wow, i went from page 1 to the last page & didn't believe that it was the same conversation... somewhere something got different....

Nevertheless, i agree with #3 that while many females are incredibly fabulous and all are equal (if not better) then males, implying that that all females are inherently superior to all males is an untenable position.

Marshal.



subinchico -> RE: female Supremecy (1/4/2010 3:03:45 AM)

@XYinferior=very nice!  I think mine (FS) came from being beaten a lot from mom years 0-4 and hidding under the couch while mom and friends sat wearing spike heels! Thats just me though.  I wish for more female leaders.  Lastly, we will mimic the uterine environment soon!



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625