RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy?

RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

thetammyjo -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 1:17:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: MrDiscipline44 I didn't say Lincoln gave her the right to vote. I said Lincoln gave her the freedom she attributed to feminism. And as far as I know, feminism had nothing to do with the civil rights movement. Feminism gave "white" women the right to vote and equality. For those of color, feminism really did nothing. It was the civil rights movement that gave those of us with color the equality. If it weren't for these two factors, Rama might still not have had the "rights" she misguidedly loves. I was addressing Rama's obvious racial heritage and the fact that if it wasn't allowed, supported or fought for by men, she'd not be here making a fool of herself. A valid point, indeed. What many proud, militant feminists who would write out herstory sometimes fail to aknowledge is the constitutional republic bled for and constructed by males which gave them a forum in which to speak. Recognizing the importance of women in history is well to do, but it is likewise important to not forget those armies of soldiers, scholars and statesmen who have built a place in which one's voice of dissent can be heard—and tolerated. Actually when this "democracy" in America was formed, women lost a lot of political and social power that class membership had given them. And when women brought up the fact that they wanted the right to vote, men just laughed thus starting off the need for women's movements on issues that men thought were too silly. Imagine that, women treated as human beings is silly... gee, I can't imagine why any woman would want to be treated as a human being, can you? Please try to remember that women were by and large forbidden legally and socially from being political and military leaders yet a few found ways to participate even if it meant they had to pretend to be men. Judging women's abilities or participation in the past while ignoring the legal and social realities is similar to clipping the wings of a bird and then declaring that birds of that species can't fly because that bird in your cage doesn't. Would you all tolerate such claims on this website about race or religion? Why try it with sex?

amayos -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 2:58:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Actually when this "democracy" in America was formed, women lost a lot of political and social power that class membership had given them. We do not live in a democracy; we live in a constitutional republic, which, for social and economic reasons, was forged out of resisting the tyranny of an oligarchic empire. In that empire some enjoyed inclusion in select class membership, yet most surely did not enjoy the benefits of that inclusion. quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Judging women's abilities or participation in the past while ignoring the legal and social realities is similar to clipping the wings of a bird and then declaring that birds of that species can't fly because that bird in your cage doesn't. I do think you might have missed the point of my original comment, but to elucidate further with the motif of your analogy: when the mother birds pleaded and begged that their children should fly and not suffer broken wings any longer, their keepers, being men of eventual conscience and reason, one day unfastened the cage doors. Some may say the birds were allowed to fly into what was only a bigger cage, but the truth remains that America has fostered an environment in which the argument of women's rights were able to be addressed. I do not argue that many women suffered greatly in the past for their future sisters; my comments were intended to those feminists who would only demonize men. You know, those who start off their opening argument with, 'listen up, faggott...'

cloudboy -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 3:16:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos We do not live in a democracy; we live in a constitutional republic, which, for social and economic reasons, was forged out of resisting the tyranny of an oligarchic empire. Amayos, you are off your game here. We have a Constitutional Republic because THE MASSES ARE ASSES. The last thing the founding fathers wanted was a democracy. Shay's rebellion hit a little too close to home for them.

amayos -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 3:54:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy We have a Constitutional Republic because THE MASSES ARE ASSES. My eyes are opened, finally. @_@ quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The last thing the founding fathers wanted was a democracy. Shay's rebellion hit a little too close to home for them. You are referring to a time when America was in formative chaos, and not under a coherent system of constitutional law. We do not have a democracy in this country, as the 'majority rules' ideal of democracy is essentially unfair.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 4:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: amayos We do not live in a democracy; we live in a constitutional republic, which, for social and economic reasons, was forged out of resisting the tyranny of an oligarchic empire. Amayos, you are off your game here. We have a Constitutional Republic because THE MASSES ARE ASSES. The last thing the founding fathers wanted was a democracy. Shay's rebellion hit a little too close to home for them. I have to agree. The US constitution was very conservative document which is why it has lasted. The founding fathers were a mirror image of the establishment in London. The French and the Russians had revolutionary constitutions giving greater democracy to their citizens which is why their establishments had to overthrow them.

amayos -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 4:31:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I have to agree. The US constitution was very conservative document which is why it has lasted. The U.S. Constitution has lasted because it works.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 4:37:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I have to agree. The US constitution was very conservative document which is why it has lasted. The U.S. Constitution has lasted because it works. Of course it does, precisely as cloudboy says or at least implies, it keeps democracy away from the people and in the hands of the political establishments. The French and Russian constitutions didn't work because they gave democracy directly to the people. No political establishment can allow that!

KittenWithaTwist -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 5:04:23 PM)
Since when is female supremacy "accepted"?

KittenWithaTwist -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 5:14:44 PM)
quote: I don't believe one sex is better automatically, but I've definitely seen more women I would deem inferior. Mostly, in terms of mental stability, big thing for me. I've never seen a man completely freak out at work and have a break down. I've seen women do this. I've never seen a man leave work, because of girlfriend problems, I've seen this mental breakdown several times. I've never seen a man ask for help as a general course of action, but it seems some women do this as par for the course, though don't even think about how it interfers with others work. I've never seen a man complain he can't wear shorts to work that let his ass hang out, either. These are just examples from the workplace I've noticed. So, I take it you're excluding those total freak out breakdowns where people bring guns to work and shoot their co-workers and supervisors. Or bring guns to school and shoot everyone. I'm sorry that in your work environment, some of the individual women that you've personally worked for or with or above are whiners, but the actions of a few individual women do not warrant the belief that women are generally inferior.

amayos -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 5:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Of course it does, precisely as cloudboy says or at least implies, it keeps democracy away from the people and in the hands of the political establishments. The French and Russian constitutions didn't work because they gave democracy directly to the people. No political establishment can allow that! My take on it is slightly different, perhaps because I still think America at its innermost foundations is still good. There will always be corruption and scandal in structures of human power, but our system of elected representation and constitutional framework organizes democracy—which, if left alone, would transmorgify into eventual socialist tyranny. And boy, have we gotten off topic.

KittenWithaTwist -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 6:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Happilymarried I personally would like to find the person who started the woman's revolution and smack them. Their intent may have been to move women forward, but all they actually did was take women from the home and put them into jobs outside the home. Oh but wait, we still have the home and the kids to care for. So, they basically fought for women to have the right to work 2 full-time jobs. I may take a hit for this; but here goes, women would have been much better off in the home baking cookies and looking pretty for her husband. I was really born out of my time era. I should have been born in the 1800's, and I would have fought against feminism. I'm sorry if I come off as rude here, but this kind of view makes me SICK. Do you realize that the suffragists fought for your right to marry someone you love? They fought for a woman's right to choose to do ANYTHING. She can work or she can stay home, but she has the CHOICE to do it. She has the right to say, "Yeah, you're my husband, but you can't hit me or rape me or use me if I don't want you to." She has the right to have kinky feelings and she has the right to enjoy sex. She has the right to vote, the right to believe, the right to say "No I don't want babies," or "Yes, I want to lead the world." Would you be on your computer in a forum speaking out against ANYTHING without feminism? It's unlikely. You want to be barefoot and pregnant, great, but it certainly isn't your right to force it on every other female in the USA. Thank Gawd for the suffragists.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 6:46:17 PM)
Then all you really mean is that we don't have the kind of democracy you'd like. Saying we don't have democracy at all is just playing with words. "Democracy" simply means that the people rule, and--last I checked, at any rate--the people elect the legislators in this country. quote: ORIGINAL: amayos We do not have a democracy in this country, as the 'majority rules' ideal of democracy is essentially unfair.

amayos -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 7:35:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Then all you really mean is that we don't have the kind of democracy you'd like. Saying we don't have democracy at all is just playing with words. Not the way I see it. The people rule, yes, but via a system of checks and balances and elected representation. Unmediated democracy means that if you are a corn grower and 55 out of the one hundred people in your village decides to divide more than half your crops for social taxation, you have no legal say or recourse against it. quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster "Democracy" simply means that the people rule, and--last I checked, at any rate--the people elect the legislators in this country. Which in turn makes our society a republic. A republic based upon the framework of a constitution, checked and balanced by three branches of government.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 7:38:45 PM)
It's not "democracy" OR "republic," Amayos. "Democracy" is a concept, and "republic" is the instrument by which democracy is implemented in this country. What you're describing, straight majority-rule democracy, has never been very popular and is hardly the only interpretation of "democracy" in human history. In fact, I don't think it's ever been attempted because it's always been considered so abhorrent.

amayos -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 7:57:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster It's not "democracy" OR "republic," Amayos. Correct. It is a constitutional republic, or one could even say democratic republic. quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster "Democracy" is a concept, and "republic" is the instrument by which democracy is implemented in this country. Per that line, I'm not really sure what we are disagreeing on here, then.

Jasmyn -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 8:59:51 PM)
quote: Why is it then that every female lead government has either faded to the background or become non-existent then? Umm New Zealand's Labour led government is now in it's third three year term with a female Prime Minister that doesn't appear to be fading into the background or becoming non-existent anytime soon. ...just thought I'd let you know that not every female lead government has faded away. Depends on what you consider "fading into the background", Jasmyn. You also don't see New Zealand as a leading world power to be reckoned with. Now if you had said your original statement was specifically about women led governments fading into the background of leading world power governments then sweet I could understand you making this point, but considering you didn't I find ya post somewhat moot..so on that note my original comment stands. Kia kaha :)

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 9:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KittenWithaTwist quote: I don't believe one sex is better automatically, but I've definitely seen more women I would deem inferior. Mostly, in terms of mental stability, big thing for me. I've never seen a man completely freak out at work and have a break down. I've seen women do this. I've never seen a man leave work, because of girlfriend problems, I've seen this mental breakdown several times. I've never seen a man ask for help as a general course of action, but it seems some women do this as par for the course, though don't even think about how it interfers with others work. I've never seen a man complain he can't wear shorts to work that let his ass hang out, either. These are just examples from the workplace I've noticed. So, I take it you're excluding those total freak out breakdowns where people bring guns to work and shoot their co-workers and supervisors. Or bring guns to school and shoot everyone. I'm sorry that in your work environment, some of the individual women that you've personally worked for or with or above are whiners, but the actions of a few individual women do not warrant the belief that women are generally inferior. hmmm, out of this whole thread you pick mine as a example. It's okay though, but what is disturbing that you found my example of what was admittedly my own experience to be worth committing about. But didn't comment on any of about 10 much worse generalizations about men. Hmmmm, that's what is disturbing really. I say at the places I worked I noticed men seem to act more mature. And I get four women decrying the possiblity. LOL. But the very same women that sound so logical in regards to womens equality, seem to ignore every post that blatantly and brutally bashes men. I might respect your opinion more if I saw you take offense whenever any generalization occurs about women or men, but as it stands it seems to be purely based on what is between your legs. So, it appears your offense is limited to unfair statements made against one sex only? Fair enough.

ServiceNTucson -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 10:51:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrDiscipline44 Depends on what you consider "fading into the background", Jasmyn. You also don't see New Zealand as a leading world power to be reckoned with. Given the fact that New Zealand has nearly 1,000 miles of water between herself and her nearest (friendly) neighbor, why on earth would she WANT to be a leading world power?

ServiceNTucson -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 10:59:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrDiscipline44 No, Mrs. Thatcher didn't fade into the background. But she also is no longer the Prime Minister of England and no other woman has stepped up to succeed in her footsteps. Therefore it is no longer female led. I also would like to point out that the only sign of Mrs. Thatcher being feminine was the fact she wore skirts. She had more masculine qualities about her then feminine. With the exception of some brutal dictators such a Castro and Mugabe, almost nobody who was in power when Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister is still in power now. That is the nature and one of the blessings of republican forms of government. While Mrs. Thatcher does indeed have more balls than almost all other politicians, she is, nonetheless, a woman.

ServiceNTucson -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/3/2006 11:15:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: amayos quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I have to agree. The US constitution was very conservative document which is why it has lasted. The U.S. Constitution has lasted because it works. Of course it does, precisely as cloudboy says or at least implies, it keeps democracy away from the people and in the hands of the political establishments. The French and Russian constitutions didn't work because they gave democracy directly to the people. No political establishment can allow that! Umm "taking democracy away from the people" is, by definition, impossible. Taking POWER away from the people is another thing in which case "democracy" doesn't exist. The United States has never, thank Goddess, been a democracy. The French Revolution did manage to briefly install a semblance of democracy, which descended almost immediately into terror, chaos and eventually dictatorship. The Russian Revolution never came close to democracy, although the murderous thugs who led it, aka the Bolsheviks, liked to throw the word around a lot. They pretty much went straight to the terror, chaos and dictatorship, the usual result of radical revolution.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125