RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy

RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (Full Version)

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

Message

dcnovice -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/15/2007 9:16:57 PM)
In of wiitwd, I'm a man who likes the idea of submitting to another man, which kinda blows out the whole one-sex-is-superior paradigm. As for the big wide world, I think it's crazy to have either sex be automatically dominant. Why write off half the population from leadership when in fact both men and women can be good leaders--or followers?

juliaoceania -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/15/2007 9:32:41 PM)
I could write a long winded explanation with historical precident to describe how societies have had either male dominated or female dominated institutional structures, what the economic considerations are for such societies, and why societies that have a more equitable gender power distribution tend to exist.... but that would probably be boring, so... I will just say this, the more one has to rely on one gender as opposed to the other to acquire valuable resources, the more one gender will predominate over the other... there are no cultural universals. As women start to break the glass ceiling, can provide as much resources as men, they start to at times attain the power... not only in society at large, but within their relationships... There is no "natural superiority" in the anthropological sense. There are no cultural universals either. Anyone of one gender who feels they are superior to all members of the other is just fooling themselves... but hey, if they need to assert that to find some sort of self esteem in the world... Go Them, as long as they do not try to legislate this belief or infringe on me, I really do not care.

akbarbarian -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/16/2007 12:27:02 AM)
What I'm hearing thus far is more about the virtue of the individual regardless of gender, and the irrelevance of gender to guarantee virtue. I am also hearing about female supremacy, but in a private setting with no supremacism towards the world at large. How then do female supremacists adopt that term as opposed to female dominants, or is it simply saying they have private female dominated hetero relationships and it goes no farther than that? It must be hetero, because after all, with no one to be superior to there can be no supremacism.

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/16/2007 12:40:56 AM)
I'm going to be lame and place the dictionary definition of supremacy, so that you may understand from whence people are coming when they speak of supremacy within relationships... quote: Main Entry: su·prem·a·cy [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: s&-'pre-m&-sE, sü- also -'prE- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -cies Etymology: supreme + -acy (as in primacy) : the quality or state of being supreme; also : supreme authority or power My opinion is that the US and the world is male dominated, and therefore, y'all (males) stating that you are is belaboring the obvious... Kinky (non-standard) is the woman who states I am dominant, and prefer men who submit to me, as opposed to your average vanilla male dominated relationship. M

CandleInTheWind -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/16/2007 12:56:27 AM)
How about humanist?? I do not think that one particular sex or the other has the line of succsss

eyesopened -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/16/2007 2:50:00 AM)
because i am a female submissive i can only state my own point of view. i believe the feminine is like a river, strong, life-giving, a source of life and plenty wherever she travels. i believe the masculine is the dam-builder, who secures the river without changing her, making her more than she was without Him, a source of energy, a watershed for the drought, a lake for recreation. He tends and maintains the dam or she will burst out and become destructive. Who is greater? The river or the dambuilder? Neither is greater. Each needs the other to make something of greater purpose.

LaTigresse -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/16/2007 4:25:07 AM)
Until you have a same sex relationship that functions quite well and blows the male female concepts right out of the proverbial river.[:D]

Lashra -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/16/2007 4:37:25 AM)
We are humans, we are all flawed and therefore not "supreme". Each person regardless of gender has their own plus and minuses, gender has nothing to do with it. To me a person who proclaims their gender, race or religion as "supreme" is a person who is unenlightened and hasn't looked around them very much. They wear blinders so they can only see things their way so that in their own minds they are supreme. There is no scientific data that supports that one gender is superior in everything to the other and afterall without both sexes the human race wouldn't be around for very long. ~Lashra

akbarbarian -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/16/2007 2:19:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig I'm going to be lame and place the dictionary definition of supremacy, so that you may understand from whence people are coming when they speak of supremacy within relationships... quote: Main Entry: su·prem·a·cy [image]http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: s&-'pre-m&-sE, sü- also -'prE- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -cies Etymology: supreme + -acy (as in primacy) : the quality or state of being supreme; also : supreme authority or power My opinion is that the US and the world is male dominated, and therefore, y'all (males) stating that you are is belaboring the obvious... Kinky (non-standard) is the woman who states I am dominant, and prefer men who submit to me, as opposed to your average vanilla male dominated relationship. M I don't think it's lame, and in fact, if it clears up some things about the meaning intended by female supremacists it's very helpful. Goreans for example may not commonly use the term male supremacist, but as I understand it there is the belief most commonly held by Goreans that males have the evolutional right to be dominant with regards to females in general. Is it different in female circles when the term female supremacy is coined? If so, it seems like a misnomer when you look at the definition of supremacist rather than supreme which really isn't quite the same. I am actually more interested in what beliefs do exist, and why, than to decide right or wrong about them. I already hold my own beliefs. I created this thread to learn about the beliefs of others. su·prem·a·cist (sʊ-prĕm'ə-sĭst) [image]http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif[/image] n. One who believes that a certain group is or should be supreme.

eyesopened -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/17/2007 1:44:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse Until you have a same sex relationship that functions quite well and blows the male female concepts right out of the proverbial river.[:D] :) of course you're correct but still, one needs the other, right? my point was only that, from my own limited point of view.

nephandi -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/17/2007 6:02:52 AM)
What gender is the superior? That depend on the traints you judge by. If you value physical strenght then men, the ability to bear children, then woman and so on. You tell me what trait to judge by and I will tell you what the superior sex is.

SirDominic -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/17/2007 8:11:24 AM)
Interesting thread, especially since practically no-one is actually answering the original query. The OP asked about patriarchal and matriarchal societies, not individual beliefs. Most responses have been from the personal point of view, and most have been related to the BDSM lifestyle. Okay, most societies for the past 2,000+ years have been patriarchol. Like em or hate em, that has been the way of it. Not that there haven't been powerful women, like some of the Queens of England, or even Hatsetshup in ancient Egypt, or my personal favorite, Zenobia of Palmyra; but those have been the exception in what have been predominantly male ruled societies. There are tantalizing clues that there may have been female dominated societies in the far past, but, at least in Western Europe, and the Americas, their histories have been so obliterated by later male dominated ones that it is almost impossible to know how real they were. Has the world been better off because of male rule? Would women ruled societies have been better? Who can say. Since, in the end, we are all humans, I expect matriarchal societies would have had their own flaws and virtues; they just would have been different from the patriarchal ones we know about. Namaste, Sir Dominic

DiannaVesta -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/17/2007 9:59:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rover In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with any kind of "supremacy" as it relates to one's own relationship dynamic. And by contrast, I have a deep and intolerant issue with any kind of "supremacy" as it relates to all relationships (ie: that's portrayed as universal in nature). John well said. Obviously I'd dealt with this issue many times and I am always flamed. Its MY THING and even though I write about it, support the REALTIONSHIPS that adopt it, I by no means shove it down anyone's throat. This will no doubt be another long ass thread on supermacy.

DiannaVesta -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/17/2007 10:04:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirDominic Interesting thread, especially since practically no-one is actually answering the original query. The OP asked about patriarchal and matriarchal societies, not individual beliefs. Most responses have been from the personal point of view, and most have been related to the BDSM lifestyle. Okay, most societies for the past 2,000+ years have been patriarchol. Like em or hate em, that has been the way of it. Not that there haven't been powerful women, like some of the Queens of England, or even Hatsetshup in ancient Egypt, or my personal favorite, Zenobia of Palmyra; but those have been the exception in what have been predominantly male ruled societies. There are tantalizing clues that there may have been female dominated societies in the far past, but, at least in Western Europe, and the Americas, their histories have been so obliterated by later male dominated ones that it is almost impossible to know how real they were. Has the world been better off because of male rule? Would women ruled societies have been better? Who can say. Since, in the end, we are all humans, I expect matriarchal societies would have had their own flaws and virtues; they just would have been different from the patriarchal ones we know about. Namaste, Sir Dominic Dominic you are right, it was not really what the OP was asking but I don't think we'll get much history or herstory in this thread. I think it would definately have been different if matriarchy was the rule but then again its hard to say what the end result would have been. It seems that at some point someone always wants dominion.

jezzabelle -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/17/2007 12:27:52 PM)
Personally, i don't tolerate supremacy by any gender or race. i don't think any person is greater than another just because of the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation, their age, the political party they are part of, their religion, dominant, submissive, switch, etc. All humans are equal in my opinion and should be treated as such. Yes, they may all lead different roles in life, but that's what makes them unique and makes up who they are. It does not make them better than someone else.

mizoloffe -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/18/2007 8:00:59 AM)
The word or idea of superiority is just a human construct . In reality things just have various qualities and characteristics . To claim something as superior to something else depends on context and what properties are deemed as better than others . These criteria are what creates the opinion .

amayos -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/18/2007 10:42:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: akbarbarian I'd like to see support for either male supremacy, female supremacy, or reasons to be against either one. A fun subject to explore, but in a politically correct melting pot forum like this one, you will find few who see worth in laying their beliefs bare for inane public scrutiny. I believe a considerable sum of female power and "supremacy" as we define it today is a construct of modern civilization. Take away the egalitarian protections it affords, and most women will be reduced to some form of chattel. Of course, that is not to say that a good percentage of men wouldn't be, either.

Aubre -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/18/2007 10:48:57 AM)
Let's hold a rock-paper-scissors tournament of all human beings and use that as our basis for who is supreme - There Can Be Only One!

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/18/2007 11:14:57 AM)
Male supremacy or female supremacy...I don't think so ..there are just males and females that happen to be dominant,,THE whole thing about one sex superior to the other is just a crock of worms everyone like to open from time to time.WE are a married dom couple so we see this from both points of view,,,WILLIAM

CreativeDominant -> RE: Male supremacy or female supremacy (1/18/2007 1:09:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: akbarbarian I'd like to see support for either male supremacy, female supremacy, or reasons to be against either one. For anyone who cites historical advantages, please list specifics. If one side did it wrong, show how the other side did it right. If patriarchal society went wrong, did matriarchal society in practice really do it that much better in any specific examples historically? And if the patriarchs had it right, why so and what ills did it prevent? Has there been a society that didn't have our superior/inferior gender roles that worked well? The USA is still struggling there so I'm not sure that would serve as any kind of example. Also, by tolerating either male or female supermacy is that any different from tolerating white supremists or nazis? Is there a kind of tolerance of supremists that is fine as long as they don't cross a certain line, and if so, what is the line? I cannot give support to either male supremacy or female supremacy as a universal concept. My reasons against male supremacy or female supremacy as a universal concept...I've met too many individuals of both genders who certainly would not fit the term "supreme" in anyone's mindset. I am dominant because that is what I am comfortable with, not because I am a male and that automatically makes me supreme over any female. As a heterosexual male, I therefore seek out the complement to my dominant beliefs...a submissive female. Within the context of our relationship, she is submissive and I am dominant. Our roles are equal though the way they are played out often appears to those who do not "get it" as being unequal. The roles are there because this is the way we view ourselves and because the way we view ourselves is also how our partner views us and it has nothing to do with her being my inferior or "lesser" than me. For those who view supremacy as part of the nature of their relationship...to each their own. When you wish to come up to me and tell me that women are superior to me and every woman should own a male as they are only good for serving the female (or the reverse from a male supremacist), I can't and won't go there with you. Any more than I care to argue the supremacy of one race over another.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125