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

BitaTruble -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 1:47:29 AM)
quote: The point to it is women are just as guilty as men. Western society makes out that men are the only people who do wrong. No that men are the only people who do wrong.. just that they do more wrong and more violent wrongs than women. Male violent offenders rate at 1 in 9 males over the age of 10 a rate 6 TIMES THAT OF WOMEN. 1993 - 1997 crimes committed by men = 13,098,000 crimes committed by women = 2,135,000 % of crimes committed by women sexual assault = 2% robbery = 7% aggravated assault = 11% simple assault = 18% Department of Justice http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wo.pdf

naughtynick -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 2:09:05 AM)
You may find this link interesting. It will open up in a pdf file. www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

ExistentialSteel -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 2:09:39 AM)
Bita, I'm still trying to figure out the 2% of the women who committed sexual assault. Talk about frenzy.

naughtynick -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 2:11:21 AM)
In other words. A lot of domestic violence made by females never gets reported.

puella -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 2:56:01 AM)
hehehe... What was the original intent of this thread?

Lashra -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 5:12:59 AM)
I think the point is neither gender is SUPREME we are all humans capable of doing good deeds and bad deeds. Yes more men get slammed for wrong doings because they statiscally commit these crimes more often than females. However with that said I do think any female caught committing crimes should be perscuted just as a male would. Another thing I think our society does is it tends to dummy men up. How many times have we seen a boy doing something wrong like throwing rocks near someones car and hearing a Mother say "Oh he's just a boy" and lets the little ass continue until he breaks a window? How many times has a teenaged boy been out having sex with several different girls and Dad says "Thats my boy" until he gets one of them pregnant then its the GIRL's fault. We need to stop making up excuses and start teaching our children right from wrong. Men are capable of controlling themselves ruling out a mental/medical disorder and yes they should be accountable for their wrong doings if they commit them. Our society seems to think its ok to say "Well he's just a man, what can you expect?" Yes he is a man who barring a mental disorder, should be capable of controlling himself. This same rule should apply to women as well, there should be NO difference due to gender. ~Lashra

Dustyn -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 5:22:18 AM)
Why is the term for strong females feminists, which is supposed to be a compliment of sorts, but chauvinist, which is male most of the time, is regarded as an insult if there is such an equality between men and women? - Dustyn

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 5:29:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TakingYou1 Women, like children, are miserable when they don't have any accountability or structure. Has anyone known a self-proclaimed "feminist" to be actually happy or content? What they really need are liberal spankings. Your views are quite accurate! Most feminists are NOT happy, so they respond to that by wrapping themselves in their 'cause'.

MontaukDaisies -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 9:19:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Misstoyou quote: ORIGINAL: MontaukDaisies Female Supremacy does not make sense to me. [:'(] Male Supremacy does. [:)] (Wouldn't it just be ok to leave it to personal beliefs?) [;)] By definition it already is a personal belief. Similiarly, I tell my Myth students the definition of "mythology" is other people's religion. Our personal religious belief, of course, is "faith." ** Edited for typo Cool beans... that's a nice way to look at it. As a teacher, I can appreciate you giving the "politically correct" terminology to youngsters who ought to be learning tolerance, acceptance and individuality! Brava!

MontaukDaisies -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 9:25:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 quote: ORIGINAL: TakingYou1 Women, like children, are miserable when they don't have any accountability or structure. Has anyone known a self-proclaimed "feminist" to be actually happy or content? What they really need are liberal spankings. Your views are quite accurate! Most feminists are NOT happy, so they respond to that by wrapping themselves in their 'cause'. I suppose (as a woman) I ought to defend women/dommes... but I can't. I have been around D/s and BDSM groups/communities/real life happenings.. for more than a decade. I have SERVED a Domme, too. I have yet to meet ONE that was a loving person to her sub/slave. Each of the ones I've met and gotten to know spoke disparagingly about her sub/slave - as though /she was a piece of shit, a low-life.. Why these men stayed with each of these "dommes" is beyond me. So... there'll be someone that replies to this post that says I haven't met EVERY SINGLE Dominant woman around.. and you're right. We are about OPINIONS here on the boards. I'm stating mine. Each of the Dommes I've met seems very angry, very vengeful... female supremacy, blech! [:'(]

Reasonable -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 9:44:25 AM)
I can't see displaying contempt for one who serves me,as well. And I have seen exactly what you speak of-the man haters. I guess these guys simply have a penchant for seeking abuse-these women seemed to act like they were so twisted by thier past baggage-that they needed a continual vent to release it-or they would explode. Bad way to express it-therapy would be a better option. Life doesn't get any better by feeding your illness-try a cure.

Najakcharmer -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 10:05:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 quote: ORIGINAL: TakingYou1 Women, like children, are miserable when they don't have any accountability or structure. Has anyone known a self-proclaimed "feminist" to be actually happy or content? What they really need are liberal spankings. Your views are quite accurate! Most feminists are NOT happy, so they respond to that by wrapping themselves in their 'cause'. That argument sounds quite familiar, historically speaking. Let me refer you to the work of John Henry Hopkins. "Suppose, however, that he belonged to an inferior race which the law did not presume to be fitted for freedom at any age, what good reason could be assigned against the continuance of the property? Such, under the rule of the Scriptures and the Constitution of the United States, is the case of the negro. God, in his wisdom and providence, caused the patriarch Noah to predict that he should be the servant of servants to the posterity of Japheth. And the same almighty Ruler, who alone possesses the power, has wonderfully adapted the race to their condition. For every candid observer agrees that the negro is happier and better as a slave than as a free man, and no individual belonging to the Anglo-Saxon stock would acknowledge that the intellect of the negro is equal to his own." The prevalent argument of the day was that the Negro was naturally unfit for freedom and equality, and that they were much happier with the rules and structures imposed by a benevolent white dictatorship which forced them to be happy and productive rather than lazy, shiftless and criminal. "The Scriptures show me that the negro, like all other races, descends from Noah, and I hold him to be a man and a brother. But though he be my brother, it does not follow that he is my equal. .... The Anglo-Saxon race is king; why should not the African race be subject, and subject in that way for which it is best adapted, and in which it may be more safe, more useful, and more happy than in any other which has yet been opened to it, in the annals of the world?" Take a group - any group - and subject them to conditions under which they feel that they have less opportunity and are treated less fairly than the dominant group. Tell them that they are in fact inferior, less intelligent, less mature and less capable. This experiment was actually performed in the classroom http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/indecentlyexposed/profile.html is a brief overview. The results you get are predictable. They won't be happy. The reason they aren't happy is not because blue eyed students are naturally lazy, incompetent and in need of being able to emotionally accept and revel in being ruled over by brown eyed students before they can be happy. I think a lot of the reason that both women and men aren't happy in this society is that neither gender is fully appreciated or respected, and that we teach ways of relating between the genders that are based more in mistrust, misunderstanding and manipulation than on honesty and clear communication with respected partners. We've all seen the bitter, angry, man-hating feminist, and the bitter, angry, woman-hating misogynist as the end result.

crouchingtigress -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 10:09:46 AM)
wow. awesome post. off to read the study...ttfn. quote: ORIGINAL: Najakcharmer quote: ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40 quote: ORIGINAL: TakingYou1 Women, like children, are miserable when they don't have any accountability or structure. Has anyone known a self-proclaimed "feminist" to be actually happy or content? What they really need are liberal spankings. Your views are quite accurate! Most feminists are NOT happy, so they respond to that by wrapping themselves in their 'cause'. That argument sounds quite familiar, historically speaking. Let me refer you to the work of John Henry Hopkins. "Suppose, however, that he belonged to an inferior race which the law did not presume to be fitted for freedom at any age, what good reason could be assigned against the continuance of the property? Such, under the rule of the Scriptures and the Constitution of the United States, is the case of the negro. God, in his wisdom and providence, caused the patriarch Noah to predict that he should be the servant of servants to the posterity of Japheth. And the same almighty Ruler, who alone possesses the power, has wonderfully adapted the race to their condition. For every candid observer agrees that the negro is happier and better as a slave than as a free man, and no individual belonging to the Anglo-Saxon stock would acknowledge that the intellect of the negro is equal to his own." The prevalent argument of the day was that the Negro was naturally unfit for freedom and equality, and that they were much happier with the rules and structures imposed by a benevolent white dictatorship which forced them to be happy and productive rather than lazy, shiftless and criminal. "The Scriptures show me that the negro, like all other races, descends from Noah, and I hold him to be a man and a brother. But though he be my brother, it does not follow that he is my equal. .... The Anglo-Saxon race is king; why should not the African race be subject, and subject in that way for which it is best adapted, and in which it may be more safe, more useful, and more happy than in any other which has yet been opened to it, in the annals of the world?" Take a group - any group - and subject them to conditions under which they feel that they have less opportunity and are treated less fairly than the dominant group. Tell them that they are in fact inferior, less intelligent, less mature and less capable. This experiment was actually performed in the classroom http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/indecentlyexposed/profile.html is a brief overview. The results you get are predictable. They won't be happy. The reason they aren't happy is not because blue eyed students are naturally lazy, incompetent and in need of being able to emotionally accept and revel in being ruled over by brown eyed students before they can be happy. I think a lot of the reason that both women and men aren't happy in this society is that neither gender is fully appreciated or respected, and that we teach ways of relating between the genders that are based more in mistrust, misunderstanding and manipulation than on honesty and clear communication with respected partners. We've all seen the bitter, angry, man-hating feminist, and the bitter, angry, woman-hating misogynist as the end result.

MHOO314 -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 10:10:00 AM)
OK first of all, you are mixing too many terms here IMHO-- Regarding the CM selection options---male "supremacy" is seen as the vanilla norm---so female supremacy is indeed a deviation from that norm---hence the selection. Now as for supremacy versus chauvinism---I see these things as way different than Dominance-- To state unequivocably that one gender should be supreme over another does not allow for a good mix and blend of talent--if males are always inherently supreme, we miss the balance of the yin to the yang---just like if Females are always supreme. Strength/supremacy should be built person by person regardless of gender. Now as for chauvinism--I see that as a personal belief, a way of treating and looking down on people---that is a personal flaw--IMHO, one can be Dominant and not be chauvinistic. One can be Dominant and NOT be Supreme-- Now to address the fact that women activitists are sad creatures that need a good spanking---how chauvinstic, arrogant and ignorant is that thinking? That takes the human race a million steps back to the knuckle draggers.

Reasonable -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 10:14:36 AM)
Let's also not forget another aspect of the Yin and yang here folks. That by the very actions of controlling-the controlled expert an influence on the supreme one. Were you to not bother,it would be the ultimate power-indifference. That you must control means,by default-that you are also enslaved.[;)]

crouchingtigress -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 10:25:57 AM)
Ok back after reading...that was good read, I esp liked the part about racism now. Takingyou1, I find your remarks uncomfortable, because I personally think that some women are like children, but then so are some men, and I think all humans do better with structure and accountability. I am sure your comment was tongue in cheek, but I think it is valuable to be shown as Nakacharmer and I are doing now, that your comments also devalue women in a way that might prevent you in the future from really loving, appreciating and empathizing with you mother, your wife, you slave, your daughter and even the female side of yourself. This inability to appreciate the contributions and differences of the feminine nature, historically, has made men restless, unbalanced, unfulfilled, violent and empty inside, a fate I would not wish on my worst enemy.

vaj85uk -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 10:37:06 AM)
IMHO - Men have played at supremecy for a long time and now it's Womans turn. Male supremecy has, in general, become a joke as their supremecy is inches long and lasts for an hour at most ... Female supremecy, however, is a frame of mind and the Dommes I have met don't "play" they are what they are and know their bounds and are empathetic to the sub's needs.

Najakcharmer -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 10:46:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MontaukDaisiesI suppose (as a woman) I ought to defend women/dommes... but I can't. I have been around D/s and BDSM groups/communities/real life happenings.. for more than a decade. I have SERVED a Domme, too. I have yet to meet ONE that was a loving person to her sub/slave. Each of the ones I've met and gotten to know spoke disparagingly about her sub/slave - as though /she was a piece of shit, a low-life.. Why these men stayed with each of these "dommes" is beyond me. So... there'll be someone that replies to this post that says I haven't met EVERY SINGLE Dominant woman around.. and you're right. We are about OPINIONS here on the boards. I'm stating mine. Each of the Dommes I've met seems very angry, very vengeful... female supremacy, blech! [:'(] My guess is that you have either met some people for whom Reasonable's suggestions should apply (eg, they'd be better off in therapy than in the kinky community) or you're seeing couples playing their "public games" that are just for fun, and which the male sub/humiliation fetishist has most likely requested from his partner. Personally I find it difficult to do that type of humiliation even as a play session, since I feel that my choice of submissive partner reflects very much on me. I want my partner to be someone I can be proud of, someone whose competence, strength, pride, personal conduct and honor is a positive reflection on me. What does it say about me if I choose to spend my time with a partner whom I fundamentally do not like, someone who is beneath contempt and unworthy? Nothing healthy or good to be sure. A few journal excerpts that may be relevant: "One of the classic "things that can go wrong" with BDSM relationships is making the mistake of thinking that because leather and kink are involved, it's okay to toss all the usual common-sense items out the window and refer to some Big Leather Book Of Answers that dictates what is proper in a D/s relationship. Doesn't work. There is no Big Leather Book Of Answers, and the fundamental stuff that happens in human relationships also happens in BDSM relationships. We are still humans with human emotions, and we still have to deal with the same issues as everyone else in our relationships. We don't get any exemptions from dealing with the world's real life issues, in or out of our relationships, just because we are kinky." "My model of the D/s relationship is very much like samurai to lord, in honorable fealty. Or like the alpha of a wolf pack, responsible leadership. It all ties in ultimately to my views about morals vs ethics, rights vs responsibilities. The dominant does not merely have rights over a submissive's body. That is only half of the equation. The other half is the awesome and occasionally frightening degree of responsibility for his safety and health, both physical and emotional. The responsible dominant is a protector, a leader, a healer, a nurturer, an alpha wolf who guides the Pack, a samurai lord who supports his retainers in honor. Too many of the people pursuing kinky pleasures have no conception of responsibility and see only the rights that are the fun part. They remind me of little children who look forward to being grownups so that they can go to bed whenever they want to. The reality of being a grownup is more rights and also more responsibility, and that's the part that some people fail to understand. " "Love to me is the awesome committment of total physical trust, the gifts of body and soul given and recieved, desire fierce enough to leave its mark on willing flesh. Romance is the security of real bondage, knowing that you are valued enough to be literally held, and you value your partner enough to restrain him. The gift of dominance is as bright and beautiful as the gift of submission, and as awesome in its scope. To take the responsibility, the burdens of another's life, completely into your hands for a moment so that they can rest - this is true love, to me. To submit one's self utterly into those hands, trusting, is a gift whose worth cannot be measured in this world, and nothing material could ever hope to match it. Those things are in me to the core, and they will be with me forever." "Eventually the whip arm gets weary, and you find yourself in the same room with an adult human being who has a mind and a personality and a voice. Should he not also be good company and compatible as well as a good submissive, this presents problems in any relationship lasting longer than a kinky play session. So, let us see if we can make friends first." Held fast by steel, you know the soft caress This paradox transcendent and rare The hand that closes fiercely in your hair Claiming past consent with strange and savage tenderness Painting passion crimson on your breast Yet says your name as softly as a prayer. I mark your willing flesh to write the things I should not dare And hope you hear what I shall there confess In the leather's kiss, for how can I say "I love you" any other way? - Naja K. Charmer

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 10:51:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress This inability to appreciate the contributions and differences of the feminine nature, historically, has made men restless, unbalanced, unfulfilled, violent and empty inside, a fate I would not wish on my worst enemy. Curious is that your view of men historically, as restless, unbalanced, unfulfilled, violent and empty seeing that most societies were and many will still argue controlled by men. So, it's a small step to conclude during all of recorded history you'd apply those qualities on men. All because they didn't embrace the feminine nature as you are putting it. hmmmm, So, masculinity without femininity is bad. So, what is femininity without the masculine nature? Is that good without bad, or is it the same list applied to women as well? Just curious, because it's reading like you view a purely masculine being without a feminine nature. As being a psycopath. (restless, unbalanced, unfulfilled, violent and empty )

MHOO314 -> RE: Why is female supremacy accepted but not male supremacy? (5/1/2006 10:52:09 AM)
Ahhh Naja! How nice to see you after so long, welcome back to the boards and as always, deeply insightful.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875