|
jbcurious -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/5/2010 4:58:03 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Focus50
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wheldrake
quote:
ORIGINAL: Focus50
Considering much of the D/s dynamic resonates from base, primal needs, how do you think the "no gender is superior" theory might play out in a world where law and order had broken down altogether and replaced with basic instincts, which usually begin with "survival of the fittest"?
But why is this the appropriate framework for assessing "superiority"? I mean, yes, a total breakdown in law and order might temporarily create a situation in which physical strength and aggression were important qualities, and to some extent (maybe not all that much, as long as guns and ammunition were available) this would favour men over women. But there are lots of other situations in which intelligence and social skills provide an alternative and probably better route to power. Even in the post-apocalyptic scenario you seem to have in mind, the survivors would come together to form some sort of society - and as soon as that happened, women and physically weaker men could aspire to influence and leadership. I'll bet there were lots of powerful matriarchs by Palaeolithic firesides.
It seems to me that if you're going to argue that physical strength and aggression make men superior to women, you also have to accept that the average musclebound gangster is superior to, say, Stephen Hawking. And that's a pretty strange kind of superiority.
As a male submissive, I'm certainly glad that there are some women who are comfortable with power and very good at using it in sensible ways. While I don't consider either sex superior to the other in any important sense, I do sometimes fantasise about female-dominated societies in which all the important and influential positions are held by women. A country that operated on that basis would be interesting to visit, though I don't think I'd want to live there.
Well that last paragraph pretty much took care of your objectivity.
Overall, what I find fascinating is that, speaking generally, it's really burning the women's toast in this thread to concede the average male is much bigger, faster and stronger than the average female - ie a physical superiority. They can't do it...! The contemporary sisterhood has really done a number on society.
If we're really that equal, that neither is superior, then surely it's time the Olympics (for eg) stopped organising competition based on gender. Instead of the men's 100 metre sprint and the women's 100 metre sprint, we just have the open 100 metre sprint. Soooo, who wants to place bets on how many women make the finals?
Now, believe it or not (and I haven't once used the word 'inferior' in this thread), I'm not dumping on women - I like women. But the fact is they're built with lighter construction and are fuelled by very different hormones. What's winding me up a bit is that it's NOT ok to be a *man* anymore. As catize ably demonstrated for me, 'testosterone' isn't a male hormone anymore, it's the popular contemporary zinger for putting males down and, when used on tv, the sheepish male is instantly reduced to the head-bowed silence of his masculine shame....!
We've had freakin' years, nay, decades of that "sensitive new age guy" (snag) crap, of the male needing to "get in touch with his feminine side" or at least needing to get all tearful when the world occasionally turns out to be a tough place. And even at CM, we get the occasional "dom getting in touch with his submissive side" bullshit topic. Not domme, mind you, just dom....
It just doesn't end.... It's got absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, btw; that's more about the roles consenting adults agree to. Still, I picked up on a simple generalised point that "no gender is superior" and look what happens - it's unpalatable to be proudly male. Women can only rise through diminishing the male persona, even gender apparently. If the male is superior in some way, well that's best discussed privately in poorly lit basements using hushed tones with other males. The very thing I like most about women is that they ARE DIFFERENT to men (a few too many of the feral young ones excluded). What, that's only ok if we never get into specifics - at least, not publically? Or that's not even ok?
Focus.
The fact of the matter is that we no longer live in cave man times...we do live in a somewhat civilized community where help is just a phone call away and a gun is just a registration away...and is a great leveler when it comes to brawn. The fact that one is capable of kicking someones ass does not make them a better person...or as my father used to say "Might does not make right"
True strength and power comes from the use of ones brain...in being smarter and better informed, In a greater understanding of what makes people work...what motivates, what gets you what you want.
In warfare...who wins the war? The brutes in the frontline or the strategist pulling the strings?
I agree that I don't like the idea of the "sensitive, emasculated man" for myself... nor do I want a bully that thinks he can whip my ass into submission.
I'm looking for the type of man who uses his brain and people skills to make me choose to submit to him out of a knowledge that he is superior in the ways I need him to be. If I were a lesbian I would be looking for the same qualities in a woman.
So no...I don't see one gender as being superior to the other...at least not in the characteristics that I consider to be real strength.
|
|
|
|
