|
|
A Woman with a whip: always just BDSM?
I’ve been reading your blog since 2009. I was wondering if you could answer two questions I have for you about your beliefs. I know you’ve answered these questions in a few different ways before on your blog, but I wanted to put them to you directly to see what you’d say.
My first question is about pseudoscience. There are people who accuse Female Supremacists of “pseudo-science,” or at least being very selective with scientific facts about the biology of sex differences for their own agendas. Does science really support belief in Female Supremacy? Is there any reason to believe Female supremacy exists as a solid ideology and lifestyle beyond Femdom BDSM?
—Ash
To answer your first question, yes and no. One would be a little naive to not see some level of shoehorning going on to justify ideas of Female Supremacy from time to time, and I’ll be the first to be completely frank and sober about that reality. People—Women and men, misogynists and misandrists, liberals and conservatives, et al—spin findings and facts quite regularly, or gratuitously misinterpret them to suit a political/ideological agenda. This is as much true about Female Supremacism as notions of male supremacism (I just can’t capitalize it—sorry!), the latter having a much longer wrap sheet in history courting junk science, cleverly constructed hate groups, religions based upon pro-male mythologies, and enforcing cultural double-standards that have favored men and justified the oppression of Women since time out of mind. Let’s not forget the on-average 10% larger brain size of males was once used to assert men were naturally more intelligent than Women. Research has debunked that myth, of course. Today, we now know that since males tend to have greater muscle mass than Females, they require more neurons to power them. [1]
While some certain findings in the scientific community are relevant to Me and My beliefs, I do not pull out a Female-positive result from recent research to declare “science now proves Female Supremacy to be valid” (scientists, for the most part, steer clear of such sensitive value judgements). What I’m really doing is inviting people to consider all facts holistically with things many of us intuitively sense or personally observe about Women and men in real life, beyond controlled studies. Before such studies made it official, the social exuberance of Women—how there tends to be a certain “something” to Women that allows them to be emotionally/cognitively empathetic—was a well recognized, or at least culturally assumed Feminine attribute. Research affirms this by pointing to the Female brain’s on-average greater ability to empathize and socially interact. [2] Are the results of this report statistical noise? Is culture really behind it all? Are these sex differences hardwired in the brain? I can’t say for sure. In fact, no scientist can really say so for sure, either (for now), but there are interesting papers one finds from time to time that support age-old wisdoms. Culture may (and does, on some level) reinforce these differences and assumptions about the sexes, but the Female advantages toward empathy are shown to be innate in the average Female…at least in the paper I just cited, and others like it. We know Females, on average, tend to have better memory than males. [3] Genetically, we know Females benefit from having two X chromosomes, whereas males possesses an X and a Y chromosome (the latter a degraded X now used to determine maleness). Having two sets of fully functioning chromosomes helps Females in dealing with disease and environment more efficiently than males. [4] Socially, one can easily prove the negative cost of males through statistics on crime, rape, suicide etc. [5], [6], [7]
I’ll stop here (I could go on) to say that none of the above facts–and they are facts, by the way, not “junk science”—prove justification for Female Supremacy per se, but taken as a whole, and in consideration with other realities of the human condition, they definitely do (to Me and others who believe in what I believe) help to build a basis for a belief in “Female=better.” Stepping outside of that belief for a moment, one should take care to counter-weigh it with the reality that for some things, males are generally better suited (physical strength, eye-hand coordination, spatial tasks, etc). This is why I tend to steer away from contextual arguments of “superiority,” and prefer speaking in terms of aggregate supremacy. I could set aside the science and statistics that merely affirm My beliefs and then turn to the more abstract —like Female intuitiveness, emotional depth, and better leadership skills. In terms of reproductive importance, it’s not hard to see how valuable Women are and disposable men can be after insemination. In terms of the politics of sex, it’s also not rocket science to see who holds the cards 9/10 times; the Female aesthetic, as tomes of literature and art over the centuries tell, has tremendous advantages. I still haven’t mentioned (and won’t get into) the growing excellence of Women in education, politics, and business, and how demonstrably important they are in terms of leadership and a much-needed social conscience (Late-2000 Financial Crisis, anyone?) In the end, it’s not My duty to convince anyone of the wisdom in embracing Women as rightly supreme, even though I think there is a very good argument for it. It’s not simply a religion of wishful thinking, brought on by an interest in BDSM lifestyles.
Speaking of that, on to your second question:
Is there any reason to believe Female supremacy exists as a solid ideology beyond Femdom BDSM and fetish?
If you tend to frequent the world of BDSM, you might have a hard time believing the doctrine of XX > XY can exist outside of fetishes and D/s games. Regardless, many relationships otherwise free of corporal punishment and D/s psychosexual control dynamics recognize the higher authority of the Woman in the relationship, and Women overall in the family. It’s often spoken of in jest (She wears the pants in this relationship), but one would be mistaken to believe there’s never a thread of truth to such jests. While I’d never say the subtle to sometimes blatant examples of male-bashing seen in the media [ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ] from time to time are synonymous with notions of Female Supremacy, they seem related to a distrust of and contempt for men comparatively to Women. On the flip side, our infatuation with the glamor and power of Women often goes beyond a simple itch for “establishing equality.” Society, if you care to notice, has a mild obsession with Women, with how they look, how they dress, how they act, and so on. It (culture) may not be “Female Supremacist,” but it often seems increasingly Female-centric in that it spends a great deal of time focusing on Women, positively or even negatively.
All that aside, notions of Female Supremacy do in fact exist outside the vacuum of the Femdom paradigm (those who don’t want to acknowledge this fulfill a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy in what they “see”). If Female Supremacism didn’t reach too far beyond BDSM Femdom, I would imagine Ashely Montague wouldn’t have written that book of his in 1952, Erica Jong wouldn’t have gone on about the Female being the “more spiritually advanced sex,” Jane Alpert wouldn’t have seen Females as the new stewards of Mother Earth in the “next evolution” of humanity, destined to wrest “social and economic control” from men, and “Jane” Chalkstone, a suffragette, mind you, wouldn’t have been quoted for saying Women were a “great deal superior to men” in 1863. With that said, this is perhaps a good moment to point out that while a great many radical Feminists aren’t Female Supremacists, it’s probably safe to say a portion do lean in that direction, as scandalous as that may be for Feminism’s politically correct balancing act.
As for the idea beliefs in Female Supremacy are strictly relegated to the antics of fetish or BDSM, one could answer by asking the following: do you happen to know at least one Woman or Girl in your life who smugly regards men in general as uncouth, predictable hornballs almost always malleable to Feminine persuasion? Chances are you may. They may not have ever whipped a man or slapped him silly to put him in line, but to assume there are no lesser or greater leanings toward “Female is better” with such sentiments meanders into the naive, I think. I understand the desire to paint all Female Supremacists as cultish dominatrices living a life of closet deviancy: it makes them look surreal and absurd, especially when one considers the cartoon BDSM has become in the public conscience. What’s really absurd, however, is claiming all Female Supremacists are the same; that’s about as naive as asserting all Christians are the same, for instance.
Contrary to the negativity (and hope) of some, Female Supremacy isn’t just about adult play; it’s not all candied cherry ballgags, black latex rainbows, and bondage unicorns, unless that’s all it ever really means—to you. Are there Female Supremcists who incorporate overt dominance over men in the form of Mistress/slave relationships? Of course. Are there Female Supremacists who are in otherwise traditional and loving relationships with men? Yes (believe it or not). Are there Female Supremacists who want nothing to do with men whatsoever? Most certainly. We’re everywhere, and in many different forms, really. We may be your neighbor, your friend, and even your boss. We might be your Mother or Daughter. We might be your Girlfriend or Wife. Some of Us only express our sentiments intellectually or politically and some of us incorporate those sentiments strongly in Our lifestyles, with or sans whip. And of course, Female Supremacists come in many male forms, too, some merely playing the part for kink, and others passionately motivated in their beliefs.
____________________© 2007-2013 SaharahEve.com
Dear Saharah Eve,
What a treat to get another entry in Your public blog so soon! Your entries are always so informative and compelling yet carefully written. The use of the word ‘can’ in “..disposable men can be after insemination” shows how carefully and thoroughly You write. I am less happy with the questions which You patiently address. Its hard for me to believe that questions like “isnt this idea just pseudo-science” or is “this idea real outside of…” can be asked objectively. No one holds ‘democracy’ or ‘conservatism’ or ‘marriage’ to such analysis. I just think sincere people could ask better questions. Like ‘would embracing Female Supremacy mean i have to obey every Female i encounter’ or ‘how do i introduce my children to the concept’. Anyhow. Thank You again!
Hi Rich,
Thank you for your compliments, Rich. I like your example questions, actually; they gave Me food for thought on what I might write about in future articles. While the questions posed to Me in this article may indeed seem a little rudimentary, you might find it amazing how many times I’ve stumbled upon them in one form or another across the internet. The two subjects brought up in Ash’s email are not always in question form, however. Sometimes Female Supremacy is willfully misrepresented and dismissed as a mere kink or nothing more than propaganda from deranged misandrists.
I’ve been pondering on this gruelingly paradoxical point myself for quite some time, how do I introduce my offspring to the transcending lifestyle of Female Supremacy in a manner which doesn’y rely on the extremes? I’ve got concrete ideas so far, however, I’d rather absorb advice from a fellow Lady
Thank You Saharah for clarifying. I see I was hasty on my critique of those questions, especially considering the poster has been reading Your blog since 2009 and i barely have 3 months in. I can’t wait to read the future articles You mentioned. But, of course, i will wait
Dear Saharah Eve,
Thank you for posting another amazing article and always having the facts right about how Female Supremacy/Feminism/Women and men. Something that i think you find interesting: In Mexico during the revolution it was mainly the Women that fought for it but we have no official account of it here. There is a book coming out giving them a lot of credit, finally. I always do find your ideas great and enjoy reading them…me being only 21 i always loved to look up to wiser Dominant Females. If i had a question for you it would be would a 21 year old ever stand a chance to be with a Female like you and learn from the best. I hope you continue to write and prayers are always with you.
Wonderful article, Saharah Eve! i am impressed by the soberness and balance of Your deep analysis. You resist the temptation of using FACTS (proved facts) and positive certainties to claim a Superiority of the Female Gender. Talking about superiority, it is always easy to mention those few areas where somebody is particularly good at. So what? You wouldn’t automatically select the strongest NFL players to sit at the White House. And you could argue that all of them are “superior” to any US president in history concerning speed, physical strength and maybe even brain mass. Elephants do have huge brains by the way.
But You illustrate very rationally the reasons of Female Supremacy, why that would be a desirable option, and how it IS to a certain extent an actual matter of fact nowadays. You do not force people to share Your belief, but You cleverly open the people’s eyes to acknowledge that it is already taking place at home, at work, in society. The common BDSM picture has barely anything to do with it: latex dresses, rubber masks, “slaves” who pay their “mistresses” to fulfill specific wishes or scenarios… Female Supremacy does not need to become grotesque, whereas it can get harsh (yes, also whips on occasions), strict (control) and humiliating (kneeling and worshipping the Queen of the house, obeying submissively the boss).
I for one am not buying this garbage. Female supremecy is a myth and I don’t believe in it. I think its a conspiracy by the radical feminists and lesbians to gain control of our society and treat men as second class citizens. I am old enough to remember the womens libbers from the 1960s an d I knew they would not stop at equal rights. They want women to take over our universities and business so they control the strings. Its all ready happening just as they planned but I think if enough men stand up we can stop it. We need to restore traditional families and have more women raising kids at home and men as providers.
This Sahara Eve is real clever. She uses her good looks to lure men and then brainwashes them into believing about Female supremecy. She uses big words and ideas to make us believe what she is saying. IThis woman has an agenda make no mistake. But I’m not falling for it and I am not afraid of her. Take that you broad!
@Hank:
“I am old enough to remember the womens libbers from the 1960s and I knew they would not stop at equal rights.”
Thanks for proving one of the key points of this article through your own empiricism, Hank. Belief in Female Supremacy isn’t just something relegated to BDSM or the Femdom world; socially, intellectually, and politically, Female Supremacism is simply far bigger than that.
As far as Me being clever, beautiful and well spoken, I truly thank you for the compliments. As for Me having an agenda, I would think that’s obvious, given that a simple glance at the splash page is all you need to determine that. If that passes for “under the radar,” I guess I’m quite the shady and subtle brain washer. That aside, I invite you to adequately refute My above reasoning. Take that you dog!
You are trying to twist my words, nice try but no cigar. What I am saying is female supremacy is a fantasy being promoted by certain women and feminists based on lies. Just because its bigger than BDSM or Femdom world does not mean its true. The only reason I care about it is because our society is actually buying into this crap to some extent and I think its destructive to our society and need to be stopped.
So you are admiting you have an agenda? See, now were getting somewhere. I looked at your splash page and will admit you have a nice set of hooters and gams. But so what , you have some guy making an idiot out of himself – what does that prove? He’s probably an actor. I would like to see the positions turned around.
I have seen enough women libbers in my day (and unfortunately even today) to know what your about. I will gladly mix it up with you if thats what you want. You may be younger and prettier but I have experience and Im proud to say I am a man. I dont think women should be opressed, they should just be in the kitchen!
The Female Supremacy I practice isn’t based on lies at all; it doesn’t need to be. While I’ve given several supporting citations in the opening post, I’ll point out that Female Supremacy is also a way of life—regardless of some crazy radical Feminist’s double-talk and even “facts” at all. Do I really need to look at a chromosome, a secretion, excretion or microscopic neural arrangement to justify the power of the Female? Of course not. Most people with eyes don’t need that anyway, but sometimes studies do help to explain why Women often have a certain edge over men.
I can list an entire menu of reasons why Females should be held as supreme, both carnal and clinical, but in the end it’s not going to matter to men, like yourself. That’s your right, of course. Far be it from Me to attempt dissuading you, and that’s My point about not having an agenda to convince the world. As for the male in the photo, trust in that there’s no acting going on there.
P.s. I have a great deal of appreciation for men who can stand there of their own will and accept the lash for Me. There’s nothing foolish or “unmanly” about that at all. It shows great strength, in fact, to humble oneself.
@ Saharaheve. In regarding my views for myself personally, I will say that yes mine do differ from yours to a slight degree but I’m comfortable with our differences. I like to whip my man and after fuck him like a wild animal when he’s sweating and shaking and I guess to some that would make him a wimp. For myself, I am o.k. with their opinions too. But I have to ask a question for the simple fact that it’s making no logical sense: Can anyone smell the hypocrisy with Hank coming here to oppose someone’s freedom to discuss their philosophy but he is okay with exercising his freedom to express his?
@ Hank. You are fine with expressing your agenda [to see more women with whip marks, kneeing on the floor and with women having no power outside the kitchen] but I have to ask you why you are intolerant of someone expressing theirs? You impose yourself on someone else’s blog to make sexist insults and why? Because like you, they have a personal philosophy that they themselves like to express? Do no harm to another human being is what is right so I have to ask how is your views that women stay in the kitchen o.K. to be expressed but someone else’s view [which they don't go knocking down doors to express] is not allowable by you, is what confuses me. English isn’t my first language but I have to say I see a contradictory event here. I don’t see her trying to impose herself on your cyber journal but you come here to do just to her. It’s hypocritical to complain of an expressed philosophy when you do express the exact same thing.
@GoddessRaine: i was also appalled by hank’s behavior. I really didnt think males talked like that anymore. he speaks like a dinosaur. i didnt complain to him as Saharah Eve Herself has seen fit to respond, but i’m glad You said something. The really nauseating thing is that he seems to be trying to flirt in his own strange way. Ughh.
@GoddessRaine:
Excellent points. Hank merely wants to (hypocritically) express his own male-centric sexism in My forum, and I’ll even allow that to a certain point, providing it’s not just troll-speak. And between You, Me and the rest of the world, your sex practices sound hot.
I’ve been drinking a lot tonight and I’m about to say some things Im sure I will regret later but here goes.
There was something about “GoddesRaines” remarks to me that got to me on a personal level. I felt plain bad. I cant explain it, maybe it is because she is a foreigner. Hell I don’t mean no harm to anyone and I’m sorry if that is what you think. I suppose you are right that I sound hypocritical . I dont want to see whip marks on anybody especially a lady.
Rich, I suppose I do speak like a dinosaur. I am in my late 50s I’ve thought of myself a proud male chauvinist. But the times they are a changin and I realize I can’t stop it. I am a maintenance engineer (ok,a glorified janitor)in a big company and I see more and more women walkin into the boardroom. I still think quotas and affirmative action have alot to do with it but i can’t argue that women are making big advances and can’t argue that women make really good managers.
When I first wrote in I was getting ready for a fight with Sahara Eve, the ultimate women’s libber … this so called Female Supremacist. But to my surprise she didn’t get angry or nasty she just responded in a calm & intelligent way although she did have some jabs at me which were kind of funny and devastating at the same time. Hell, if this were a boxing match she TKO’d me in the first round.
Saharah Eve I’m sorry for sounding like a prick. I come across an a male chauvinist but inside I guess I’m scared. I’m scared that women are taking over things and society is changing so much. I could handle Betty Freedan and Gloria Steinem but with you Im not so sure. Here’s this woman who looks like a playboy centerfold .. she’s friggin’ brilliant AND she is a Female Supremacist. How can guys like me compete with that? Im afraid if I went deeper into your website i might find myself crawling to you, God I hate to admit that.. I have some self respect I don’t ever want that to happen.
OK I’ve said enough, probably way too much. Thank you Jack Daniels! I just want you all to know I’m not the asshole you might think. I’m sorry if I offended anyone. I still don’t agree with Female Supremacy but I understand how you might. Happy holidays to everyone.
Hank
Maybe male chauvinists need to get hammered first before making any sense?
Yeah, maybe Ms.Shayd. Im on my second bottle of Jack Daniels thank you very much. God, whats your story? Another Female Supremacist I suppose.
@ Hang. For me I was reading of your fears and of your expressions to explain the reasons for your feelings and I will give my thanks to you because I can understand you better. For me personally I can say to be living with a fear it is not too fun. And I understand and then share with you the same in having certain fears. You would have to be a woman to understand but I live in certain fears too like you but it’s more about for my safety of being overpower and overtaken by a man when out at night or alone someplace. I can not run at night and for me which is my favorite time to be without the hot sun and decreases in car fumes. But often I will not go running unless my slave lover has a night off of work where he can accompany and join me. It’s difficult to relate for you I can see because for the simple fact that you can overpower a woman if she wanted to force you to the ground and hurt you with sex. I even bet you can hold both together her arms with just one hand and keep her from using both of her two arms. But maybe you can take a moment to imagine if there were no women on earth and only men and these men had sex with one another and that every minute a number of man around the world were rapped by another man. And you knew of this and even knew of friends from schooling who had experiences or maybe you worked on a rape hot line and heard the pain to experience in with it with the callers. But that reality would make you need a chaperone companion just to walk to your car on your university campus or it would make you have to get your food shopping down before a certain hour at night or maybe for like me, it would make you feel unable and unsecured to do your running alone at night. But @ Hank, I don’t think you need to fear the women like that. You probably don’t fear them to hurt you physically. And trust me if more women were in managing roles they would not become like the men in the Middle of the east because women love their sons too much in a mother-child bond. And also, for the simple fact that men and women have an inborn sexual attraction for one another and like to flirt and be the object of an “in-love” relationship. And finally, if women were more in power they love and have many deep respect and admirations for their father relationships too much to allow them to be hurt by having no liberties of freedom. Most women are not uncaring like the men in Congo or Middle of the east.
But I thank you and jack daniels for your allowing me to see where your sexism remarks really meant and came from. I don’t think you should visit jack daniels unless with moderation because it leads to pancreatic cancer and for me I read that cancer is very much aggressive.
@ Shayd. Maybe we can find a way for @ Hank. to express his common sense without jack daniels for the simple fact that it is unhealthy liquors. Practice self-articlations in an undrunken state of mind and the better one can become.
I would like to ask, @ Saharaheve, if You could readjust for me the blog avatar. Nice picture of course but for me I would like a picture of high heels or a leather glove and hand. Yes, I can see that is asking a lot.
@GoddessRaine:
You need to register with the blog first if you want a new icon. Once you’re registered, you can select a custom icon of your own. Otherwise, I suggest getting a Gravatar to associate with your email every time you leave a comment…that will make your icon follow you wherever you go on the intrawebs. < / tech support >
@GoddessRaine I’m very sorry that our current society is such that you feel unsafe when you are alone. But you are in good company, surveys have shown that while only 20% of men feel unsafe in their home, a whopping 75% of women feel unsafe. I will walk streets at night but I wont walk in the woods which i loved once. And I think you are right to have some concern, if i am attacked its probably just for my money or if they want to kill me, it will be over quickly. But assaults against women are much more complicated and often brutal, so much it makes me ashamed of being male.
@GoddessRaine – i also think its quite beautiful that you took interest in hank and the possible reasons for his comments. The empathy and compassion of Females is a treasure.
But, as I am male, I am much less compassionate with other males and their behaviors. Hank’s excuse about being born in the 50′s and feeling ‘inferior’ are lame and his words/attitudes contaminate the people he encounters. To denounce female supremacy is his right but to denounce the equal rights of women is shocking.
@Rich:
“To denounce female supremacy is his right but to denounce the equal rights of women is shocking.”
Well said.
@Saharah Eve: Thank You. I am honored.
@Hank:
> Female supremacy is a myth and I don’t believe in it.
Female Superiority might be a myth, or rather: an undefined statement. Female SUPREMACY is just a (possible) social order. Somewhere it is a matter of fact, as you mention in a later post (“they make good managers”), somewhere it is a goal, somewhere people are scared about it – you look to belong to the latter group, fair enough. Whether this is the course of history, I don’t think so, and you don’t either.
> to gain control of our society and treat men as second class citizens.
This is not a conspiracy, this goal is quite the definition of “Female Supremacy”. It has nothing to do with lesbians or radical feminists. Saharah Eve always motivates Her points rationally, she doesn’t appeal to slogans, shouting or intimidating. She even condemns ideological, not scientific claims of “Female Superiority”. She is simply aware of different skills, for some men are better at, but I think we all se that things go better when Women steer and control a complex environment – while men are still useful workers! A good guidance is wished in every job, it makes everything much more productive. Saharah Eve claims, at THAT, USUALLY, Women prove far better. You admit that yourself.
>They want women to take over our universities and business so they control the strings. Its all ready happening just as they
> planned
This proves already that Women are good in controlling, ruling and achieving their ambitious goals. If i were a company owner, that’s the kinf of CEO I would look for.
> but I think if enough men stand up we can stop it.
I think we should not. But I am sure we wouldn’t be able to, anyway.
> women raising kids at home
This is really especial of Saharah Eve. Unlike (some) feminists, she does not disregard motherhood as a “male oppression”. It is rather another piece of the evidence of the great role that Nature gave to women. i also like Weomen raising children, albeit with all concrete help (also in a practical way, changing pampers and so on) by husbands. But this should not prevent Women from achieving their professional goals and leadership. There are wonderful examples of family mothers being CEO’s at the same time. Further: I think mothers have an added value, their experience is precious.
> This Sahara Eve is real clever.
That’s for sure.
> She uses her good looks to lure men and then brainwashes them into believing about Female supremacy.
She uses all her gifts, the most impressive being Her knowledge of human psychology, and also a very rational way of addressing any topic. If She “brainwashes” us, it means She is a great leader. Still i think “brainwash” is wrong, because She NEVER disregards men’s opinion. She takes every point and makes Her own points. Read Her blog: you’ll never find a statement like “that’s a male opinion, why considering or even replying?”. never.
> This woman has an agenda make no mistake.
This Woman has an agenda, but She makes no secret out of it. Her agenda is open and i subscribe to that agenda. If you are reading Her blog, it means that agenda has, at least, something worth your consideration.
> she’s friggin’ brilliant AND she is a Female Supremacist. How can guys like me compete with that? Im afraid if I went deeper
> into your website i might find myself crawling to you, God I hate to admit that..
Maybe you were ironical, but there’s more truth in your words than you might believe…
@Kneeling Nothing:
“Still i think “brainwash” is wrong, because She NEVER disregards men’s opinions. She takes every point and makes Her own points. Read Her blog: you’ll never find a statement like “that’s a male opinion, why consider or even reply?”. Never.”
Thank you, Frank, for pointing this out among many of the other fair things you say above. Visitors here should keep in mind that I treat males in general a little different from males that are My slaves, only the latter being expected to reflect My desires and will without question. Male input, overall, is valued here. I’ll even consider other points of view, providing they are expressed with respect and make some semblance of sense.
@GoddessRaines Goddess, do you have a website also?
Hello all, I thought I’d try to get my two sense in here. I, much like Hank, stumbled onto this site cuz this type of sexual play is my kink and I think its fun, consensual play. With that said I find the thought of female supremacy and presumed male inferiority authentically disgusting. I literally feel deeply disgusted by it. I don’t mean to be pejorative or insulting, and I’m sorry if I come off that way, but the idea of female supremacy is a morally disgusting thing and to me seems to be identical to male supremacy or white supremacy or any presumption of inherent superiority of any group and inferiority of another. The common thread in all supremacy movements is an attempt to justify the assumed superiority of the group through cherry picked research and broad (often misconstrued) judgments/beliefs about the group espoused as fact or unvarying truth. Another common thread of supremacist movements is that it does nothing to progress society but pulls us backward into division and inequality, which is exactly what this supremacist movement does. In fact I really don’t see you as different from Male supremacists, you are the other side of the same gender-based supremacist coin, each side citing evidence that can be equally misconstrued to support the exact opposite position and each side promoting the subjugation of other human beings.
You told Hank earlier to point out what was inconsistent or fallacious in what you wrote above, if you’d like we can do that. But my issue isn’t really in how you justify inequality, its in the fact that it propagates inequality just as identically as this male-dominated world has propagated inequality for centuries, and I feel this is evidence enough that this position is wrong in determining a better future. In fact given the definition of a better future this position should be immediately abandoned in that it is inherently divisive and unfair. You would probably argue that all the pain in the world has resulted from men and if women were in power then there wouldn’t be any, or at least substantially less. I’ll let you make this point if you wish and we can discuss it then because that would be too much to write in this one comment. Again, I don’t mean to be offensive, just to have a civil, intelligent conversation about human rights.
@Brian:
“You told Hank earlier to point out what was inconsistent or fallacious in what you wrote above, if you’d like we can do that.”
By all means, do proceed, Brian.
“Again, I don’t mean to be offensive, just to have a civil, intelligent conversation about human rights.”
You do of course realize that I advocate slavery to Women be consensual, correct? Therefore, this is not a “human rights” issue whatsoever. If you want My ear for a moment in debate, you have your chance, but please cease using silly shell games like the above, or this conversation will be fermé quick.
Oh yeah no doubt its consensual, otherwise it would be illegal. But when I used the term human rights I was saying that you’re cultivating an idea of inherent human inequality, I wasn’t trying to play any “shell games”. But anyway, lets move on…
In the second paragraph you attempt to put forth evidence for female superiority by quoting the differences in males and females and then attaching your own value judgement that the women’s differences are better. Before you go into your argument you say that legitimate scientists don’t attach value judgement to their findings. This is because its a logical fallacy to do so. The way you chose to perceive the findings are empty of fundamental truth and are simply your own perceptions. What I mean is that your perceptions are subjective and thereby not factual, and your perceptions are not inherent in the facts as you suggest by your argumentation. For instance, some evidence you gave for female supremacy was the genetic differences between males and females which, I’m sorry to say, was misconstrued and misinterpreted, but I’ll get to that a little later. You say that there is a widely recognized special “something” in females, which is an opinion and has no inherent truth, and to bring validity to your belief as if it was science you point to the differences in brain structure and genetics between males and females. One manifestation of these genetics are a female brain that is generally more concerned with empathy which arose mechanically due to the advantages it posed in evolution. Your choice to interpret this as a “special something” is entirely your choice and has nothing inherent about it or any foundation in truth. Much like the male supremacist’s choice to interpret the smaller female frame and weakness as evidence for male superiority, or whatever argument you want to use that attempts to interweave opinion with fact, you are both applying your own personal perceptions to what is fundamentally just differences. How you interpret those differences are up to you. But all this is more in the realm of philosophy, lets look at your science, at least in the second paragraph to begin with. Also, empathy is not a feminine attribute. Empathy doesn’t have genitalia or a gender. Empathy is something that all people, including men, share being that it was essential for our species in our evolutionary history as social animals. Anyway, lets look at the science you present.
Still on the second paragraph. You cite the nature of the Y chromosome as evidence for male inferiority in that it is “a degraded X”. Well I’m sorry to say but this is wrong. I’m assuming you got this idea from Ohno who first espoused this idea during the 1960′s. The current consensus is that the X and Y chromosomes originally evolved from a pair of identical chromosomes called autosomes around 166 million years ago (Muller, HJ (1914). “A gene for the fourth chromosome of Drosophila”.)( Lahn B, Page D (1999). “Four evolutionary strata on the human X chromosome”). With your fallacious comment that Y is “a degraded X now used to determine maleness” you imply that females are the primary sex and that males are a degraded spin off or variation. Besides the fact that your science is wrong, the logic you use if the science was correct is also wrong in that it is completely subjective. If the science was right, which its not, then I could use your words and logical processes to conclude the exact opposite of your position in that females are inferior because they are the incomplete, less evolved, submissive version of males lacking the dominant Y chromosome. As you may or may not know men use all the genetic information that women do despite your preoccupation with the Y chromosome, and in addition to that they have the genetic information of the Y that allows for traits only accessible to men. So, if men developed as a variation to women and have access to all the genetic information a woman does plus the male-specific evolutionary advantages on the Y chromosome then its pretty safe to assume that men are the more evolved variation of women. Additionally the Y chromosome is dominant over XX and would not be so unless it proved to be superior and more advantageous to have in the progress of evolution thus ensuring that even the slightest hint of the presence of Y would produce the more advantageous maleness. Just to be clear I don’t believe in this argument.
Once again, the problem with this argument and your own argument (which are logically the same) besides being based on wrong information, is that they are subjective interpretations that can be interpreted in which ever way you want to support whatever position you want. You go on to cite the genetic diseases that men are more vulnerable to because of the evolved resistance for Y to recombine with X, thus requiring only one genetic mutation on the X rather than two that would be required for XX. Again, the logical process you use is fallacious in that it is subjective and can be used to support the exact opposite of your position: Women are inferior because they are more susceptible to autoimmune disease. Additionally men are superior because they are physically stronger, have higher tolerance for pain, have greater lung capacity, recover quicker from concussions, heal faster from wounds, etc, etc. I’ll stop here, although I could go on, to say that none of the above facts prove justification for Male Supremacy per se, but taken as a whole, and in consideration with other realities of the human condition, they definitely do help to build a basis for a belief in “Male=better.” Again, this is completely subjective, personalized interpretations superimposed over facts as if they were one.
This took up way more space than I intended, so I’ll try to be brief with the rest of this. You cite that the majority of violent crimes are committed by men, which is unfortunately true, and conclude that this is easy evidence of the negative cost of maleness to society. Again this is fallacious reasoning and leaves out too much to be considered a legitimate or even passable statement. What you failed to mention is that the overwhelming majority of men are not violent criminals or rapists, and on top of that the overwhelming majority of violent male criminals are arguably not born that way in that they were raised in a violent or abusive household (over 80% of violent criminals are victims of abuse or violence in childhood). This false reasoning is characteristic of all supremacist movements and if your logic holds true then we need to extend it to race, ethnicity, religion, hair color, favorite type of cat, everything. So according to your logic, one can easily prove the negative costs of blacks and Hispanics on society through statistics on murder/incarceration. I hope this highlights how wrong this way of thinking is in that, I hope you know, there is nothing inherent in blacks or Hispanics that make them more violent or prone to crime but instead is a product of the conditioning of society which I feel you place far too little emphasis on. Otherwise it would be justifiable to say blacks and Mexicans are naturally violent and inherently are a “negative cost” to society. I hope you don’t see this as a “shell game” as you mentioned earlier because its not. Its the fully realized result of your, or any supremacist’s, logic.
Further down in this entry you cite society’s growing fascination, in your opinion, with females and, I assume, relate this to the superiority, or special “something”, that you believe women have. Well this is just a societal flux and proves nothing. Way back in the days of ancient Greece there was a tremendous fascination with males and the elegance of the male body. So this must be in support of male special “something”, right? Nope. Its just a societal flux, a shift in collective attention for a period in time like fashion or philosophical movements, and proves nothing but where people’s attentions are at that time.
I’m going to cut myself off here. Sorry this came out so long but there’s so much to address. Again, I don’t mean to be insulting or demeaning if I ever came off as such.
@ Brian,
Oh yeah no doubt its consensual, otherwise it would be illegal. But when I used the term human rights I was saying that you’re cultivating an idea of inherent human inequality, I wasn’t trying to play any “shell games”. But anyway, lets move on…
Actually, let’s not, because this really touches at the core of whiny meritocratic types who just can’t stand the type of lifestyle I represent. This is not a human rights issue, for everything I “inherently cultivate” is based upon consent and the desires of two cooperating adults. So let’s stop with these foolish insinuations that I’m somehow on the same par (even if in a cultivating one) with Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, or the general atrocities going on in Darfur—examples of real human rights issues.
The way you chose to perceive the findings are empty of fundamental truth and are simply your own perceptions. What I mean is that your perceptions are subjective and thereby not factual, and your perceptions are not inherent in the facts as you suggest by your argumentation.
Perception is nothing more than a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something, and science isn’t free of this; we may sharpen our abilities to be objective, but cannot ever escape perception as we tinker about with the fibers of the universe, for to do so would mean we would be unthinking automatons, simply passing data along without any context to us as human beings. You prattle on about value judgments, but what is the point of all scientific knowledge if we do not attach value or meaning to it? I’ve heard this appeal of yours before, of course. “You’re making a value judgement.” Yes, in fact, I am. That’s what Female Supremacy is all about, if you haven’t noticed. We are constantly speaking about the higher value of Females, scientifically, philosophically, spiritually, etc. It’s not a big secret, here or elsewhere.
One manifestation of these genetics are a female brain that is generally more concerned with empathy which arose mechanically due to the advantages it posed in evolution. Your choice to interpret this as a “special something” is entirely your choice and has nothing inherent about it or any foundation in truth.
I don’t think you’ll get any argument from Me that the “mechanics of evolution” have led us as a species down a particular path. The foundation of truth that I do draw from, however, is something we can now point to in research as a result: females on average show more empathetic reasoning than men, and there are solid differences between male and female brains that make this clear—not that we need them proven, anyway. I’m sure I don’t need to say I’m not the only one finding a “special something” with Female intellect, and what I state isn’t anything that hasn’t been stated before by others writing in psychology, business and sociological commentaries/papers.
You cite the nature of the Y chromosome as evidence for male inferiority in that it is “a degraded X”. Well I’m sorry to say but this is wrong.
Actually, it’s a mutated state of the X, but considering the paucity of genetic information contained on it, someone making a value call might be inclined to call it “degraded.” For as much as you carry on about My preoccupation with the Y chromosome, you seem a but hung up on the genetic discussion yourself. For the record, I’m not preoccupied with the male chromosome at all, but I do make commentary upon facts as I understand them. That both sex chromosomes originated from autosomes has never been argued by Me, but in fact supported—so I’m not certain why you introduce this into the discussion. I will say the Y chromosome in humans does appear to be in a state of degradation, incurring a long line of mutations that increasingly make it loose genetic information. It may, in fact, stop functioning in a few million years. That’s not Me just pulling this idea out of thin air; scientists have theorized this as well (you can read an abstract on one of such papers here: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=RD03096 ). Interesting things to note, but it’s not the centerpiece of My argument for Female Supremacy, anyway. I’m not certain if you will be relieved at hearing this or not.
With your fallacious comment that Y is “a degraded X now used to determine maleness…
Please see My above reference, Brian. I’m going to skip over the rest of your XX/Xy commentary because I think you’re belaboring your basic point that it’s a value call, that My science is wrong, etc. I will say that since their divergence from their identical autosomal identities, the natural process of translocation and recombination has brought the male determining Y chromosome to a rather “unidentical” state. The constant is the Female chromosome; we never talk about the Female chromosome degrading or going extinct. We never talk about its unusable genetic information. Perhaps it’s indeed wrong-headed of Me, but that is one of the reasons why I refer to the Female as the “Primary Sex.” One of the reasons—one of many.
This took up way more space than I intended…
I think this will be the one area you and I are both in agreement upon.
You cite that the majority of violent crimes are committed by men, which is unfortunately true, and conclude that this is easy evidence of the negative cost of maleness to society. Again this is fallacious reasoning. What you failed to mention is that the overwhelming majority of men are not violent criminals or rapists, and on top of that the overwhelming majority of violent male criminals are arguably not born that way in that they were raised in a violent or abusive household (over 80% of violent criminals are victims of abuse or violence in childhood).
Your smoking gun to disprove My reasoning leaves much to be desired. It’s not that I “failed to mention” anything; the fact remains that male aggression and male-dominated values is what lies behind every war we can remember since time out of mind. In a social context, it causes a fair deal of violence and criminality, proportionally higher than that of females across all social strata. In fact, the one popular theory that female aggression would rise up alongside that of males once they had the same social perks as males has been debunked with the finding that female violence and homocide rates decreased between 1975 and 1990 (Steffensmeier, Darrell and Allan, Emilie. “Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending.” Annual Review of Sociology. 1996. Vol. 22. pp. 459 – 487).
So according to your logic, one can easily prove the negative costs of blacks and Hispanics on society through statistics on murder/incarceration.
If you consider My above point, you’ll see that male violence compared to Female violence is not simply a social/cultural issue, as is the matter of discrimination or economic circumstance. Aside of the fact female aggression is not as proportionally high as male aggression overall, it’s also quite relevant to note that male aggression has been linked to Monoamine oxidase-A and the serotonin 2A receptor. Perhaps even more important to note where the subject of this site is concerned, Maternal influence can serve as a buffer to prevent males with this predilection from being pathologically aggressive—in other words, Mothers can help to alleviate naturally inborn male aggressive attitudes, and keep those who are more predisposed toward aggression from acting upon it. I think that’s a pretty neat thing, but again, this simply validates something we already sense about the role of Mothers.
Further down in this entry you cite society’s growing fascination, in your opinion, with females and, I assume, relate this to the superiority, or special “something”, that you believe women have. Well this is just a societal flux and proves nothing.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but I do note how even you don’t discount the trend. I’m aware of the homo-erotic aspects of ancient Greek culture which celebrated male youth, though that was some time ago. Despite the oppression of women in classical Greece, it is worth noting how they still managed to have an array of powerful female goddesses and art/sculptures devoted to them. All of that aside, the past and the present are not the same place, and it would be foolish to compare an oppressive patriarchal society to the open marketplace of ideas and values found in the more contemporary social balance between the sexes today. When we take away the oppressive constraints of absolute male hegemony, we see Women thriving quite well, and the fascination society seems to have with us isn’t dying by any stretch of the imagination. It never really has, if you study art over the periods of antiquity to present day.
Dear Brian,
to your first post: I understand your view. Inequality is “per se” bad, history has quite a few examples for that. I won’t reply point by point, just a short mention: Lady Saharah has always made a point of distinguishing between Female Superiority (which She does not support) and Female Supremacy as a desirable order. She explains that men and women are different, each gender having its corner where they are (usually) better at.
She is FOR all mankind having the same rights in front of the law. She just invokes more leadership to Women as beneficial. If you are a better leader than me, it does not prove you are superior to me. I guess I can still a lot of things better than you. It is then best that you lead, and you provide the best conditions for me to do what I am particularly good at. At that level, I think one can cite studies – which are of course trends and can be contradicted by a few “outliers”. Sociology cannot predict an individual’s behavior, but it grasps some general trends with a decent accuracy.
So there is nothing disgusting in Lady Saharah’s view of society. It was much more disgusting the whole time in history where Women had much less rights than men. Now Lady Saharah is NOT asking to reverse completely the roles, and deny men equal rights. She just invites to acknowledge what is ALREADY happening, and to admit that overall female leadership is good for society.
@Frank:
Your point that I have always distinguished between superiority and supremacy as a preferred order is key, and I think visitors who would like to attempt arguing with Me on the subject of Female Supremacy as a preferred order tend to overlook this. It makes Me wonder if they see Me as an effigy for everything they’ve ever read about Female Supremacy, from Rasa Von Werder to Elise Sutton; after all, I’m pretty easy to find regarding this subject, but easy to spot doesn’t mean I stand for every stupid thing said about the overall belief.
Do you not believe that females are better than males, on an inherent level? Do you not espouse this on your website? Do you not use the supremacist’s logic to interpret science in support of inherent human inequality? Well this is the common thread of all supremacist movements, and in fact supports all supremacist movements including the opposite of your own as I’ve shown. With your logic you can chose whatever flavor you like. Are you white? You can support white supremacism (I’m not saying you do) with the exact same logic. Are you Hindu? You can support Hindu supremacism with the exact same logic. Are you male? You can support male supremacism with the exact same logic. If you’ve ever been a student of logic you’ll know that a logical structure (female supremacism, for example) is applied universally and if it supports opposing ideas (male supremacy, black supremacy, cat supremacy) then its not valid. The reason it does this in the case of female supremacy is the same with all supremacy movements, its entirely subjective and reliant on perception.
” “You’re making a value judgement.” Yes, in fact, I am. That’s what Female Supremacy is all about, if you haven’t noticed.”"
Thank you. That’s exactly all female supremacy (or any supremacy) is about, subjective choice of perception, aka personal opinion. The problem with perception in logical arguments is that it is completely subjective and malleable to fit anything you like. In fact if you really wanted you could take virtually every data-based value judgement you make and present the exact opposite value judgement (male supremacy) as I began to show up there in my previous entry. This is because perception is constructed from the individual, not from the facts, and therefor completely malleable to fit whatever conclusions you want. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating the mindless life of an automaton. Perception is an inevitable product of the human brain. I’m advocating the understanding that perception is completely subjective and completely interchangeable and thereby not inherently true. You can perceive women are better, or whites are better, or Harold is better, but this is what you constructed from your perception and thereby is simply your perception.
When you use the very simple conclusions of “better” or “worse” you have to understand that 1. Its not measurable, 2. Your attempts to extract measurement of “better” or “worse” from data is subjective and ultimately your choice and is not inherent in the data, 3. Your conclusion of superiority is based on the fulfillment of conditions which you subjectively define as proving superiority. You invent the definition of superiority and then see it as proof in the data you chose when your subjective definition is met. In other words, you invent the conditions for your conclusion (like building a green house and then concluding that houses are green) 4. Everything is interconnected and arises from previous conditions that arose from previous conditions. Given this truth of dependent arising for you to be able to make an assessment of “better” or “worse” (which is completely dependent on your subjective definition anyway and empty of any factual validity) you would have to be able to grasp and process everything in its totality to make a fair and valid judgement of “better” or “worse”. And if you keep digging to find this definitive “better” or “worse” I think you’ll find that everything is empty and there is nothing inherent in anything, its all the manifestations of interconnected conditions and influences. Sure you can add your opinion to the facts if you want, but you have to understand that they are still merely your opinion and not facts.
“”females on average show more empathetic reasoning than men, and there are solid differences between male and female brains that make this clear—not that we need them proven, anyway. I’m sure I don’t need to say I’m not the only one finding a “special something” with Female intellect, and what I state isn’t anything that hasn’t been stated before by others writing in psychology, business and sociological commentaries/papers.”"
Let me show you something:
Males on average show more analytic and mathematical reasoning than women, and there are solid differences between male and female brains that make this clear-not that we need them proven, anyway. I’m sure I don’t need to say I’m not the only one finding a “special something” with Male intellect, and what I state isn’t anything that hasn’t been stated before by others writing in psychology, business and sociological commentaries/papers.
Its easy to pick something out of the bigger picture and see it as a “special something” if you really chose it so, and its easy to find people who agree with us. What you are describing are differences, differences that evolved mechanically to allow for the best possible conditions for the continuation of the species, and these conditions are a synergetic male and female division of the species. If you’ll notice traits that a man might be lacking a woman has, and traits that a woman might be lacking a man has. This is how evolution sculpted us, to be two different halves of one species who’s differences work syngergetically, like two puzzle pieces fitting together. As I’ve done in my previous post I could just as easily take the male differences and use your same reasoning to conclude the opposite of what you’ve concluded, but that would just adding my own perception to the facts, and to take my perception as fact would be a logical fallacy.
“”Actually, it’s a mutated state of the X”" (referring to the Y chromosome)
As is the female XX chromosomes. The Y is a mutated form of the “autosome” X, not of the female XX which could be misinterpreted from your statements in your blog entry. Both sex chromosomes are mutated forms of autosomal chromosomes.
“”but considering the paucity of genetic information contained on it, someone making a value call might be inclined to call it “degraded.””"
Sure, if that’s the spin you want to put on it. Others (specifically male supremacists) could call it “upgraded” in that it gives a few additional advantageous traits that are only accessible to men. For me, I think I’ll call it pretty. And we’d all be equally right in our subjective perceptions.
“”I will say the Y chromosome in humans does appear to be in a state of degradation, incurring a long line of mutations that increasingly make it loose genetic information. It may, in fact, stop functioning in a few million years.”"
Yeah, this may be the case, but I’m not sure how this matters. Males and females existed 500 million years ago before the advent of the Y chromosome (or female sex chromosomes, for that matter) and they’ll continue to exist after the hypothetical decline of the Y chromosome.
“”If you consider My above point, you’ll see that male violence compared to Female violence is not simply a social/cultural issue, as is the matter of discrimination or economic circumstance. Aside of the fact female aggression is not as proportionally high as male aggression overall, it’s also quite relevant to note that male aggression has been linked to Monoamine oxidase-A and the serotonin 2A receptor.”"
War is a matter of economic circumstance, and male violence can very much be a social/cultural issue. In addition to over 80% of violent men having been raised in abusive households, you can clearly see from this society males are taught from birth to be “tough” or “hard” or “dominant”. This belief is passed on and imposed by both mothers and fathers because it is socially perceived that those are the traits their boy is “supposed” to have. Just think what toys are bought for boys, how things are marketed toward boys, and what messages are typically given to boys by their mothers and fathers and peers if they do something that’s perceived to be “girly”. I know this to be true on a personal level having grown up as a guy. And yes there is a correlation between male hormones and aggression, and this fact is often presented by female supremacists as if “aggressive” meant “violent”. Well it does not. There’s nothing wrong with being male or being naturally aggressive, meaning being competitive or energetic or vigorous or assertive. In fact these are good traits to have. What is bad is violent behavior that is often socially misinterpreted as being what you’re “supposed” to do if you’re male. And again you can’t take the smallest minority of a population and generalize their negative traits to the entire population. The overwhelming majority of males are not violent criminals. Yes more crimes are committed by males who have been abused than females, but this does not mean males are naturally violent.
“”Maternal influence can serve as a buffer to prevent males with this predilection—in other words, Mothers can help to alleviate naturally inborn male aggressive attitudes, and keep those who are more predisposed toward aggression from acting upon it. I think that’s a pretty neat thing.”"
Yeah I agree that is pretty neat. Its a beautiful thing what simply loving a child can produce. But as it is abundantly clear in research and case studies paternal influence, or presence of a nurturing father, does the exact same thing. This is exemplified by the statistic that boys raised without fathers are twice as likely to be rapists. And I agree with you. I feel like the power of nurturing love, from both the mother and father, is a pretty neat thing.
“”This took up way more space than I intended…
”"
I think this will be the one area you and I are both in agreement upon.
Haha, it would seem like I’ve done it again
. I hope its not too much of a problem, but its impossible to discuss these types of things without much verbosity.
I see you still haven’t moderated my comment. If you’re presented with a reasonable argument that invalidates your beliefs, you shouldn’t lie to yourself and keep those beliefs. If you can’t logically defend your position, then you’re wrong, and continuing to hold onto your position would just be devaluing your own intelligence. Again, I don’t know why you didn’t moderate my comment. Maybe your busy, or don’t want to continue or something. But if you didn’t moderate it because you don’t think you can defend your position, that says something about your position. And I see up there you and Frank are making the distinction between supremacy and superiority, well I’m addressing superiority which, from this website, it would be pretty safe to assume you believe in.
@ Brian,
“Like I said, when I said human rights I meant that you cultivate an idea of inherent human inequality. Do you not believe that females are better than males, on an inherent level? Do you not espouse this on your website? Do you not use the supremacist’s logic to interpret (misconstrued) science in support of inherent human inequality?”
As Frank has already illustrated, I do not so much champion “Female Superiority” as I do Female Supremacy as an ideal authority construct. You are conflating the two terms together for the sake of making a bit of a bogey Woman here, I suspect. For certain tasks, males are generally superior to Females. For others, Females are generally superior. Superiority of abilities is not the entire picture in measuring the sexes, however, and this is why My beliefs do not solely rest upon quantitative reasoning. While I’m aware you have your feelings for the “value” side of things, value is indeed primary in My belief system. Most of us are at least dimly aware of the ethos behind the Birkenhead Drill, which has in reality preceded that event in history when we lived in scattered tribes throughout the wilderness, and has been passed on today when we deal with crisis, overall: When there is danger, protect the Females and their children.
“If you’ve ever been a student of logic you’ll know that a logical structure (female supremacism, for example) is applied universally and if it supports opposing ideas (male supremacy, black supremacy, cat supremacy) then it’s not valid.”
Where my logic (if inverted) would support male supremacy escapes me. Thus far, your examples haven’t mated too well with what I’ve actually been writing on the subject; the “clever” reversals are either outdated or are easily deconstructed, though you seem to find them intellectually valid for philosophical examples, nonetheless.
Just because someone can build a set of fallacious “facts” and pass them off as justification for the supremacy of kittens doesn’t make it just as valid as what I’m espousing—which is the crux of what you’re suggesting. You state that My science is just plain wrong, and then that My value judgements about the science I give credible citations for are essentially “morally wrong” and illogical, but I’m convinced of little more than the obvious reality you are full of your own opinions and assertions of the all-holy abstract neutrality, which clusters around a safe, secure, and fashionable golden mean fallacy.
“When you use the very simple conclusions of “better” or “worse” you have to understand that 1. Its not measurable…”
You need to realize that you’re absolutism in this point is intellectually irresponsible; that you are unwilling to see My points does not mean they don’t exist. Better and worse is measurable in certain circumstances, though distilling My writings into those two adjectives is misleadingly simplistic and again smacks of a dim shell game. Nonetheless, which sex fairs better with disease and environment due to more genetic data? Which sex communicates their feelings better, on average? Which sex socializes better, on average? Which sex has a longer lifespan? Which sex is the most reproductively vital, in spite of technologies today? Which sex solely carries and passes on mitochondrial DNA to the next generation? Which sex has a higher average intelligence? Which sex is more celebrated in art and culture? Are these things indicators of across-the-board “superiority?” Not in all things, though they do give credence, at least in My mind, to the notion that Females, overall, have greater worth.
“2. Your attempts to extract measurement of “better” or “worse” from data is subjective and ultimately your choice and is not inherent in the data.”
As I’ve said before, data is data. What we choose to do with that data and how we choose to interpret within our value systems is entirely up to us. Don’t pretend you’re immune from this process, because all human thinking is value-based, inevitably.
“3. Your conclusion of superiority is based on the fulfillment of conditions which you subjectively define as proving superiority.”
You keep using the term superiority in your rebuttals, but it’s clear to Me that while you make it appear you’ve read what I’ve had to say about the sexes, you obviously haven’t. If you did, you’d find that I don’t speak in terms of superiority so much, but value.
“4. Everything is interconnected and arises from previous conditions that arose from previous conditions.”
Light moves at 186,000 miles per-second. The Earth orbits the Sun. Moving on.
“Let me show you something: Males on average show more analytic and mathematical reasoning than women, and there are solid differences between male and female brains that make this clear-not that we need them proven, anyway. I’m sure I don’t need to say I’m not the only one finding a “special something” with Male intellect, and what I state isn’t anything that hasn’t been stated before by others writing in psychology, business and sociological commentaries/papers.”
If you want to travel back into the1800s or the more “modern” fifties to find those papers, I’ll leave you to it.
“The Y is a mutated form of the “autosome” X, not of the female XX which could be misinterpreted from your statements in your blog entry. Both sex chromosomes are mutated forms of autosomal chromosomes.”
And which of the two chromosomes resembles the original schema from which they derived? The Female or the male chromosome? The point remains, Brian, that the Y chromosome, which once contained as many genes as the X, has degraded over time and now contains less than 80 functional genes compared to its partner, which contains more than 1,000 genes. Outside or determining maleness, the Y does little else.
“Sure, if that’s the spin you want to put on it. Others (specifically male supremacists) could call it “upgraded” in that it gives a few additional advantageous traits that are only accessible to men.”
One can proceed to call it that if they wish. The above genetic facts tends to keep one from rationally asserting the Y chromosome is “upgraded.” It’s a stretch of an assertion, but it’s one you and others can have if you like. The Y facilitates the production of sperm, and also begins the hormonal cascades that give males more muscles and aggression—the only substantial “special powers” allotted to men, on average, that aren’t available to Women in vast numbers, once adjusting for those cultural factors you mentioned earlier.
“War is a matter of economic circumstance, and male violence can very much be a social/cultural issue. In addition to over 80% of violent men having been raised in abusive households…”
And 63% of all boys from the ages of 11-20 who are arrested for murder have killed a man who was assaulting their Mother. Go figure. There is of course a cultural influence to male violence, but you’d be hard pressed to prove there isn’t a biological element to male violence and aggression.
For the record, war is a matter of greed and territoriality. It can (and has) also been a matter of religious wars (as a result of patriarchy), tyranny and delusions of racial superiority, the greater majority of the inertia behind these conflicts all having been orchestrated by male aggression and its penchant for dominance.
“And yes there is a correlation between male hormones and aggression, and this fact is often presented by female supremacists as if “aggressive” meant “violent”. Well it does not. “
For the record, you’re speaking to Saharah Eve, not random “Female Supremacists.” To put a finer point on things, the correlation is not only with testosterone, but with the aforementioned genes and other hormones. These forces at play in the male brain and body do make the male more physically aggressive and competitive, and as a result, generally more irritable and violent than his Female counterparts. These differences are reinforced by (world-wide, I might add) “culture,” yes, but they begin within the male brain and body.
“This is exemplified by the statistic that boys raised without fathers are twice as likely to be rapists.”
I’m certain a citation is forthcoming, and in the meantime, remember that correlation does not equal causation, My “logical” friend.
The differences between single-parent and double-parent households are not huge. Most children who grow up with a single parent end up fine on average, despite what right-wingers would assert. The differences in children raised from a single Mother aren’t large enough to support the claim that the father’s absence is the major cause of our country’s most serious social problems (http://apps.olin.wustl.edu/macarthur/working%20papers/wp-mclanahan2.htm).
Grade point averages are 3.92 /4.13. School attendance is 9.25/9.83. The likelihood of college enrollment and graduation between both favors two-parent families, but not by an alarming margin. Risk of teen births rise in single-parent homes. Father absence does diminish a child’s prospects for success in adult life, though the reasons have to do with economic instability of having only one parent, and inadequate child support is a major player. (Garkinkel, McLanahan and Robins, 1994; Hanson, Garfinkel, McLanahan and Miller, 1996)
With that said, it is the “masculinization of irresponsibility” that has caused a great deal of distress in children’s’ lives. In other words, fathers who avoid furnishing support for their children emotionally and economically are doing us all a disservice in society. Further pursuant to this point, the most overwhelming source of social malady is poverty, not fatherlessness. (The Gendered Society, Oxford, 2000; Michael S. Kimmel)
That aside, while the male is obviously not as physically important as the Female after insemination and conception to the biological process of reproduction, don’t take such sentiments expressed by Me to mean that I have contempt for fathers, or advocate them stepping out of the picture. If you do your homework on this very blog, in fact, you’ll find I give special kudos to men who raise their children, and even more to those who do so under the same roof. I believe exemplary fathers, however, show their support best by deferring to the Female in the household and by lovingly submitting to her will. He would, in turn, help his male children by providing them a more responsible masculine role model: one that loves, respects, and uplifts his Female counterpart (their Mother).
@ Brian,
“I don’t know why you didn’t moderate my comment. Maybe your busy, or don’t want to continue or something. But if you didn’t moderate it because you don’t think you can defend your position, that says something about your position.”
Contrary to what you may believe, Brian, I do have an existence beyond this website, and can only devote so much time to debating these issues personally with you. If you must know, I was away over the past few days. That is why your comment wasn’t allowed through until recently. Other comments on My blog were held in moderation queue as well, so rest assured the delay was not an indicator of the “I Won The Internet” award.
Thank you for voicing your concerns and allowing Me an opportunity to further discuss My beliefs. I do think this has come full-circle, though I invite you to comment on future blogs I write.
Although I am male, I have fantasies about an entire world run by the fem supreme, including an atmosphere like the Swedish video, where a man is shot while reading a newspaper. Maybe I’m an odd duck but think the shooter and her friends should have to go to court ( with only female officials of corse ) who decide how the heroines get to divide up his assets.