There is a lot of noise being made lately—sounding suspiciously like whining—about the subject of Female Supremacy.  Visit any D/s forum online and you’ll no doubt run into bitter discourse over the idea. The flurry of writing around Female Supremacy doesn’t end with alternative lifestyle forums, either, of course; it tends to pop up in the oddest places online. Sometimes phrases like “extreme feminism” or “matrifocal values” serve as more politically correct stand-ins, but many of the conversations inevitably boil down to discussing if, why or how Women are better leaders and doers and, well, humans than men.

I use the term “discuss” very loosely, of course. More often than not it has nothing to do with rational debate, but an all too predictable contempt over notions of Female Supremacy, voiced by men (and even Women, from time to time) with an axe to grind.

Is the Female better than the male? It seems we are fascinated with this idea as a species; the battle of the sexes is in fact a very old one, but has taken on a new life in our times, it seems. Female intellect, beauty, competence and mojo are things our collective minds—for or against—seem mildly obsessed over dissecting and discussing. I suppose it makes sense, considering the legacy of sexism imposed upon Women and girls for generations by crumbling patriarchal cultures, surrounded by crumbling institutions. Without a doubt, we are living in an age of liberation from many old ways of male-oriented thinking. Even in regions of the world where male dominance still has a firm grip on religious and cultural values, the message of “Women can be more than equal” is a distant, but familiar whisper.

For a time, I suppose it seemed harmless enough that a small segment of the population believed Women were not only equal, but better than men. Apparently the idea was glued to the misandrous “Feminazi” types—extreme elitist fringe Feminists straight out of the pages of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto or Andrea Dworkin’s rhetorgasms. But talk of Matriarchal values, the superiority of Female leadership and the superiority of Females in general just refused to remain pegged like that, it seems. In fact, the “chicks rule” thing has gained some serious traction by more than a select minority. Steve Jones, Geneticist, author and professor, jauntily describes the male, from a genetic point of view, as ultimately the weaker sex, and the male Y chromosome as a shriveled and decrepit junkyard with little use past defining maleness. Brian Sykes, geneticist and author, uses the structural puniness and relative uselessness of the Y chromosome to demonstrate that men are unnecessary, biologically speaking. Columnist Maureen Dowd, with humor, wit and scathing sarcasm asks if men are even necessary.

Crusades for the XX sex in big print (and all joking) aside, a number of websites and blogs have emerged over the years from an army of individuals postulating the superiority of the Woman. Online journals, Yahoo groups, lifestyle forums and social sites have centered themselves exclusively around the subject.  Obviously, there is enough brouhaha on the subject to warrant these places. While the intellectual pillars of all things pro-Female may still be inadequate in measuring up to age-old thinking and customs, that is not to say they go without notice or aren’t persuasive.

Still, I often suspected our tendency to glorify “girl power” was nothing more than a byproduct of the social pendulum swinging far in the opposite direction, but when the last hat was tossed over Women’s lib novelty, the arm of that pendulum would rock back slowly toward a more sober view of the sexes, and extremists who seek more than equality would be seen as the outliers they really are. To an extent, it seems this is happening already. Male advocacy groups have begun to form over paternal rights of fathers against biased courts. Critics are waking up to the cynical portrayal of men as lecherous, dim-witted husbands and himbos in the media. The era of modern pulp science over sexual genetics is now being met with more objective inquiry and less sensationalism. Warren Farrell hints upon the “glass cellar” that exists for men when the glass ceiling for Women is all we ever seem concerned of talking about.

Certainly, these protests are happening for a reason. It’s not some outlandish fantasy that men have experienced some degree of neglect and humiliation in modern society. The traditional male archetype is a likely effigy for the pro-Female trends of our age, an image current culture seems to take collective pleasure in bringing down.

For the old sexist dinosaurs, Pandora’s box is open. Our time sets the theater for Womankind to transcend the age-old patterns of social hegemony brought about by the male. With the playing fields ever more leveled (at least in the country I live in), Women are thriving as they never have before, and some are realizing more than notions of equality with the male sex. It seems that one day we woke up and realized Female Supremacy wasn’t just an idea reserved for fanatical idealists; new generations of adults are bringing with them some bold ideas about the place of Women as heads of the household and leaders in society, and even as natural rulers of men.

With these bold ideas comes a great amount of idealogical conflict, especially from males who have experienced an “awakening” over their slipping social dominance (or the perception of it). Some may argue that this is due to nothing more than a gradual equalization of the sexes in society, and that men are making a pretty big deal over their challenges to boys club privilege. Others see notions of Female Supremacy as a clear sign Women intend to take more once they have achieved complete equality with men. During these exchanges, the very idea of Female Supremacy itself is repeatedly challenged, and naturally so; open supremacy arguments for anything don’t appeal to popular morality. No matter how ‘inappropriate” ideas Female Supremacy may be for some, these are excellent moments for productive and respectful dialogue to flourish between the sexes, but often what one encounters is misinformational campaigns of incredible hostility or ignorance. In an effort to address this, I have compiled a list of thirteen most popular myths about Female Supremacy that I often encounter when reading these exchanges. I hope they can at least offer some minor insight into the ideas of Female Supremacy (at least from my perspective) for newcomers, or bitter enemies of it alike.

Myth 1: Female Supremacists and Feminists are one and the same.

To understand this confusion, one only needs to consider the ways so-called “modern Feminism” has drifted from its original precepts, which originally sought equality with men. What seems to be the rise of a growing number of self-described “Female Supremacists” must be attributed, at least in part, to the pro-Female movement in society, which has evolved past “first wave” (late 19th to early 20th century) Feminism and often into something entirely different.

That said, it is important to note a distinction between the call for Female equality and the belief in Female Supremacy. When so-called “Feminists” like Erica Jong write, “I believe that women are the more spiritually advanced sex,” you are hearing expressions of Female Supremacy, not of sexual equality.

Feminism can be a starting point in the belief of Female Superiority, but Female Superiority, by literal definition, cannot be supported by Feminism without intellectually tainting the movement. If you are best described as a strong modern (so-called “third wave”) Feminist, chances are relatively high you really are a Female Supremacist to one degree or another. With that in mind, I’d invite some Women (and men) to do a little soul searching and come clean with this fact instead of hiding behind the mask of sexual equality.

Myth 2: The sexes, past their physical differences, are really the same and  therefore Female Supremacy is an illusion.

Given the above definition of Feminism in mind, when I discuss and advocate Female Supremacy, I am not speaking of Female equality with men, as original Feminism set out to do. Such an idea, to Me, smacks of a fool’s errand that will never be realized, for Female equality with the male is impossible to attain in all things. On political, social and economic fronts, the struggle for fairness and equality of opportunity is, of course, sound for both sexes, but such efforts will not free us from the burden of difference that exists naturally between the sexes. The dimorphism between the sexes—and the inherent contrasts brought about that result from this dimorphism—will never allow Female and male to be identical in all things. Female and male, no matter how we attempt to homogenize them through affirmative action or blend them with trends of gender bending, will never be interchangeable. They are different on a genetic level, and this difference manifests between the sexes in function and behavior. It is for this reason I diverge from believing Feminism, “masculinism”, or any other “isms” are cure-alls for equalizing the sexes past general social agendas.

Past opportunity to engage in our intellectual pursuits in society, I don’t ever want to think of Women and men as the same; considering the differences between the sexes I have observed in My own life, I know, quite simply, they are not. It is true that men and Women can be equally brilliant and talented—a child can make such an observation. What is equally true, however, is that males commit a substantially higher level of violence, molestation and sexual assault than their Female counterparts. No matter how you wish to flow the numbers, they clearly speak for themselves. The general link between aggressive behavior and higher levels of testosterone in males has been scientifically asserted in numerous studies, and thus far, not disproven.

Males do not bear ovaries, give birth, or possess the hormonal drives in Females. Males do not possess the same physical attributes, neuronal structure or genetic composition Females have. Do these differences and others between the sexes support supremacy arguments for the Female? That is entirely up to the observer to decide, but I, not surprisingly, believe so.

Myth 3: Female leadership and male leadership ultimately produce the same result.

We currently live in a world still overshadowed by patriarchal systems, and more relevantly, methods. War and acquisition by force is by no means a stranger to us. In a society with a history of male-oriented thinking and male-oriented rules, tranquility to this day is pursued by military, political or capitalist means, all framed within constructs of male thinking, for the most part. The cost of this system, collected through violent conflict, exploitative greed, monopolization, excessive militarism and endless destructive conflict, are evident enough.

Critics of Female Supremacy will often claim Matriarchy would be no better, though it’s impossible for them to make such an assertion, seeing as how we have no working large-scale model to make objective comparisons. Female Supremacists sometimes point to obscure tribes and cultures of indigenous peoples in Asia or Africa that are matrifocal, and though there are many revealing positives to such communities, I feel they are simply not large enough to serve as models for legitimate comparison. Some may attempt to reach back into the mists of time to prove the legitimacy of ancient Matriarchal societies centered around the Supreme Goddess, but solid proof such societies existed is hard to come by, and for many historians the idea has been abandoned.

What this ultimately means is we have no large working model—past or present—available to either advocate or reject the virtues of a Female-led society. Is this a smoking gun against our claims of the good in a matriarchal society? Not really. First, though not all of it bad, we know what the model of patriarchy has given to humanity.  We do not know what a Matriarchy would give us, though some of us have our ideas, and in the very least know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; it is an experiment, if you will, that has yet to be tried, if it ever will be.

Be that as it may, some clever objectors to the idea of Matriarchy will point to empresses and lone queens of the past who resorted to war and political machinations during their rule. Where such reasoning falters is fairly simple to see: the comparatively small sum of Female leaders sprinkled throughout history rose to power anomalously through male systems and male methods in a male dominated culture (and world, for that matter). Their legacy, good or bad, came not from embracing most of their feminine qualities, but masculine qualities, masculine influence and masculine counsel, I would assert.

Catherine II is purported to have claimed having a “masculine mind”. That She would claim such a thing isn’t so out of the ordinary; a Woman who wished to hold on to Her regnant status was often bitterly contested, not only by sword-wielding patriarchs from abroad, but by a patriarchal court surrounding and attempting to subvert Her very authority, as with Elizabeth I.  Without a doubt, despite their positive influences upon the people they ruled, some Female leaders in history have drawn their own share of blood, but are they an example of leadership as it would naturally occur in a matriarchal society with matriarchal values and resulting legacies? It is highly doubtful. The claim that a matriarchy would be better, while admittedly a theory, is simultaneously unfalsifiable.

Myth 4: Men are vital in the procreation process, therefore the sanctity of Women as life givers is equal to men.

Female Supremacists are often fond of touting the roles Women have in producing life, but the way it is often worded excludes the value of the obvious and necessary male contribution. Males are of course vital in the process of reproduction. Anyone who would refute that would simply need to ask themselves how the species would procreate without males (excluding scientifically assisted parthenogenesis). While this is so, it should be noted that vital does not mean equal.

While of course important, the male contribution to the process of creating life is far from equal. Biologically speaking, men are needed to provide the other twenty-three chromosomes in building a forty-six chromosome human life. Once the effort of intercourse is complete and sperm has fertilized the egg, the male role in reproduction becomes supportive, at best. The next nine months of pregnancy and the many years following it in child rearing are the Mother’s territory in almost all cases. The father, by comparison, is the more expendable parent. Though his biological contribution is vital, it is not equal to the Mother’s contribution. The egg exists within the Female, and the resulting new life is housed within Her while it grows. The male’s actual involvement, outside of taking up a supportive and protective role to the Female, serves as little more than a fertilizer. Though relevant as a helpmate, he is ultimately disposable after insemination, whereas the Female certainly is not. I suspect this is what advocates of Female Supremacy mean to say when the value of Woman as “life giver” is mentioned. While it may not always be phrased in the most polite way, the above logic on reproductive importance cannot really be refuted, outside of haggling over insensitive phrasing.

For those who remain skeptical about inherent male expendability, a simple mental exercise may help: A primitive community of natives are threatened by two approaching lions. Who is sent to fight them off? Pregnant, spear-wielding Females or the tribe’s fathers-to-be? The answer is obvious, I hope.

But Saharah, our advanced society has removed primitive threats, so your paradigm doesn’t stand for the sexes today.

The fact not all humans in the world enjoy the advantages of a technologically advanced society aside, that counterpoint has some relevance, until we consider threats don’t only come from primitive sources. Human threat, in all its diverse forms, is very real and quite relevant, and has been the larger enemy for thousands of years. Our modern world has simply traded in old dangers for new ones. Now the quest for survival involves avoiding financial ruin, starvation, personal assault, and even war. With such dangers in mind, men are still quite useful (even if they are often the cause of the trouble in the first place). It will always be desired that men extend themselves as our helpmates once their biological contribution has been made.

Indeed, men are needed. This is not to say men are of equal biological value to Women in the reproductive process, however. In biological and social terms, reproductive cost for the Female is tremendously high. It is for this reason Females tends to be highly selective, whereas males, who do not share the same biological cost, discriminate far less. Without exploitable skills, a man more often can’t attract or maintain a mate, but this is not true for Women. Most Women can and do enjoy a wide possible gamut of mates irrespective of their jobs or marketable skills. This simple example demonstrates the nature of Woman as the reproductive Source and man as the second sex. I’m certain there are many—particularly men—who don’t like reading such things stated so flatly, but I would invite a convincing argument against the above “hypothesis”.

Myth 5: Female Supremacy is “unhealthy kink”.

Such claims are usually made by self-important “experts” and celebrities in the BDSM lifestyle, who have rather high opinions of themselves. Their self image is so great, in fact, they feel they have a better grip on “reality” about psychological health in D/s than most of the unwashed masses, as if they own some sort of share or copyright in it all. They are quite quick to get up on the soap box and lecture over their own biases for equality, meritocracy, “real” love, mental health, moral responsibility, etc.

The problem with this delusion is painfully obvious. It flies in the face of a not-so-distant truth all engaged in alternative lifestyles must consider: whatever your “kink”, chances are it’s considered appalling, sick, deranged, worrisome, or morally wrong by most of the population. Up until a revision to the DSM IV in the mid nineties, sadomasochism was considered a sexual disorder—a paraphilia of concern, more or less. That was the official take on BDSM by those who were authorities in the soft science of psychology, and it wasn’t too long ago, when you consider the date. When the next aspiring Dr. Phil in latex asserts the absence of moral correctness for a way of life in D/s, consider the simple truth that most of the human population would find his practices worrisome too. With that in mind, I feel it is tolerance from all sides that is the better subject matter in conversation.

That aside, labeling Female Supremacy a “kink” is an obvious shell game in itself. I realize that for some, a kink is all Female Supremacy ever will be, and for others, they just can’t fathom applying notions of strict lifestyle domination and submission outside of the bedroom, but the fact remains that some of us do practice this as a real way of life. For those of us who do, having our beliefs and life practices written off as mere kink is dismissive, to say the least.  More to the point, it is entirely inaccurate.

Myth 6: Female Supremacy is solely a product of male thinking.

Another unfortunate spin, sometimes made by Female Supremacists themselves, is that the very concept of Female Supremacy is laden with male ways of thinking. In fact, some will even claim “Female Supremacy” was coined by a man. While that may be true, I’m not certain how such a claim can be proven conclusively. But never mind that. There is a more robust assertion that Female Supremacy and its underpinning philosophy is a male construct, as it incorporates notions of superiority, which is quantitative and not qualitative. Apparently, anything having to do with quantities and metrics and notions of supremacy is indicative of the male thought process. I didn’t get that memo, it would turn out. Perhaps I’m one of those reversed Stepford wives cleverly programmed to believe I prefer this way of life, but in really I’m nothing more than a mindless robot for male fetish. Riiiiight. Anyway, the paradox of sexist logic used to disprove another sexism aside, I can say, being Female, Female Supremacy is not simply quantitative. It is undoubtedly qualitative, too. When discussing the differences between Females and males (which inevitably occurs when discussing any form of sex supremacy or the sexes in general), comparing qualities between the sexes is inevitable ground. When we are challenged to find statistics to back up our suppositions, we are then engaged in metrics and ratios, of numbers proving to be higher here and lower there.

But the idea of Female Supremacy isn’t simply locked in so-called left-brained thinking. While much of the argument for the supremacy of the Female involves belief in the Female as “higher”, it is a result of Her qualities as a Female which are believed to make Her a better leader, guide, arbiter, and so on.  The intuitive, empathetic, maternal and aesthetic qualities in Women are a great source of belief in Female Supremacy, at least for me, and I would wager for many others in turn, who are not all left-brained males either, mind you.

If you are not so convinced after reading this particular entry, allow me to offer myself up as living evidence that Females think this way too. Masturbatory male fantasy always? Hardly, but I suppose that until people wake up and realize real Women are living this way of life, the ignorance, often self-chosen, will persist.

Myth 7: All Female Supremacists are out to convert the world to their way of thinking, and make all men their slaves.

There are those who believe that by simply defending or articulating the notion of Female Supremacy, we are somehow attempting to recruit. While this may be true of some select individuals, it certainly isn’t so of others.

Not convinced? I would then ask the reader how he came upon this very text. Was it anonymously mailed to you as a gynosocialist party pamphlet, air dropped over your house by black helicopters, attached to an arrow shot through your window, or did it menacingly interrupt your favorite cable show like a test of the emergency broadcast system? I’m going to take a wild guess of no on all counts. Chances are you’re reading this text on a blog (mine, I hope), or in a PDF you came upon by the course of your own natural curiosity or interest. It was not forced upon you. Similarly, discussion on the internet about Female Supremacy is an intellectual exchange or appeal—not an agenda to convert.

I’m aware of those in the world who have attempted to legislate pro-Female agendas under the guise of Feminist interest, working as members of parliament in various governments. I’m aware of the Women’s rights activists going overboard in heckling and aggressive public demonstration. I’m aware of a general taint of misandry in the media. Does this mean we should lay this on the doorstep of all who believe in Female Supremacy?  No. The spectrum of believers is just too wide and too diverse, and most of us would rather talk than take by force, unlike the opposite of Female Supremacy, that being the painfully well known application of Male Supremacy.

With that said, I would ask the reader which sex in the world has the higher record in attempting to force their beliefs on the opposite sex? The last I saw, Women weren’t running a mirror image of the Taliban, or attempting to indoctrinate beliefs of sex superiority through age-old religious practices. When men make the claim that Female Supremacists are attempting to subvert society and enslave them all, perhaps their fear of that idea says more about them than it does us. Could it be a matter of collective projection?

The Female Supremacy I know does not seek to indoctrinate all people into its beliefs, nor does it seek the indiscriminate submission of all men. It is by choice people come to this way of life, which is one of many in the world’s marketplace of ideas. Deal with it.

Myth 8: Female Supremacists believe Females are superior to males in all things.

Much like the previous myth, this notion is an easily dissected straw man (or Woman). Surely, on average, men are physically stronger than Women. I have no interest in lugging out my old refrigerator, though I have far more in a man carrying me out of a burning building than a Woman. Men, on average, tend to be taller than Women. Why jump to snag that apple when you can ask your man to reach up and pick it? Men, on average, tend to be more physically aggressive than Women. While I know there certainly are warrior Women in the world, I feel much safer with male protectors on average when out and about.

I hope the above words begin to point out the more serious truth that the Female Supremacy I know finds males considerably useful and wanted; it does not seek to eliminate men, but involve them, intimately, through their complementary natural abilities in a productive synergy with Women for the betterment of the species and the world itself. With that in mind, the Female Supremacy I know acknowledges the worth in men and harnesses it productively, not destructively.

Myth 9: All Women who profess Female Supremacy are liars and cheaters exploiting the fantasy to make a quick dime out of men.

As with many of the popular assumptions and complaints in this article, this myth is not without some thread of truth. There are indeed many charlatans wearing the robes of Female Supremacy. Cynical, deceitful and sociopathic, clever but unscrupulous teen-agers and twenty-somethings (and beyond) discover the need in men to practice and believe in the supremacy of Women, but instead of rising to and embodying the source of that need, they carve out a niche market for themselves, pouting arrogantly and flipping the bird as cartoons devised for little more than profit. They fulfill the image of haughty Female dominance with all the illusory qualities of hollow seduction, demanding money, gifts and praise with BDSM trappings du jour. Their kind tends to be recognizable by the viral and embarrassingly predictable patterns of words that precede them, such as “worm”, “lowly pig”, “human ATM”, “sissy bitch”, and “humiliatrix”, among many others.

At one time, these approaches were fairly novel for bold pioneers in the world of industrializing (serving) the male sex drive. With the explosion of the internet, phone sex services clustered in the back of monthly Hustler magazines had their clientele slowly siphoned away by girl next door types advertising on the internet with live video cams.

Soon, the market became saturated, and the competition incited further delving into the psychology of male fantasy—or at least the illusion of interest in it. At this point it’s quite important to note that many men, being suckered and swindled of their cash in pursuit of their sensual idiocy, full well deserve being raked over the coals by a narcissistic teenager with no intent of offering a thread of reality, or a so-called “pro-Domme” who offers sessions at $300.00 per-hour, along with a lengthy menu of temporary simulations to sate his libido.

Sincere explorations of Female dominance turned sour over the market of pretense surrounding keywords like Female Supremacy. For many men seeking perhaps the hint of something real, all that was offered was a maze of illusions, and while it is understandably disheartening, it is easy to see how we got to where we are with the jaundiced view of it.

That said, being labeled as something little more than an overglorified sex worker is an affront to those Women who are the real deal. That is the challenge facing those Female Supremacists who do put themselves out on the internet and openly discuss their lives or express their beliefs; by virtue of association with bad company parroting the most shallow portrayals of the philosophy, they are written off as birds of the same feather. This is ultimately a case of people assuming much and imagining very little.

There is of course another root of this phenomenon: a sour and resentful element that can’t help insinuating the notion that strong, truly dominant Women who keep a stable of male admirers and servants are overglorified prostitutes with whips. I tend to suspect the source of this sentiment is little more than a smug pedestrian mentality that fears or detests the power of Female sexuality.

Oddly enough, the idea D/s minded Female Supremacists are all unscrupulous prostitutes is sometimes shared by so-called “submissive” men themselves, who tend to be cursed with forever looking from the outside in upon relationship ideals they express coveting, but never find themselves having—namely, those of Female Supremacy-based relationships. Some, it would seem, share a love-hate relationship with the practices of the lifestyle and every Woman through which it ever takes form. However these men came to form their beliefs—either through preconceptions or experiences—their biases seem further cemented through a chronic cynicism that inevitably builds roads to self-fulfilling prophecies. Beware of these types, and the infection of their negativity.

Myth 10: All Women practicing Female Supremacy are misandrous and egocentric narcissists.

I suppose it’s quite easy to draw from a few examples to arrive upon that conclusion. The problem is many of these examples come from BDSM-inspired literature catering to the masturbatory psychodrama—and the related fetish fantasy caricatures—so popular among men. This is not to say that some Female Supremacists aren’t narcissistic and utterly misandrous, but as with most absolutes in a world population of 6.8 billion, they are bound to be wrong, and this one definitely is.

I could go on about myself as a Female Supremacist, bearing witness to the warm and empathetic qualities of my personality, but I’ll keep from ruining my preciously frigid diva image online. So perhaps it may be best to speak of the Women I have met who believe in Female Supremacy, Women who have been warm, highly intelligent and overall miraculously decent human beings, exuding an air of confidence, sophistication and grace. They are strong, beautiful Alpha Females who have their lives in order. They know what they want and they get it with the tools nature gave them, and they do so unapologetically.

The men I have met who believe in Female Supremacy have all been tremendously talented, intelligent, thoughtful and generous; they seek Female-led relationships out of strong convictions in the Female as the most balanced and capable sex to lead. They arrived upon these ideas not from their understanding of the opposite sex being limited to lad magazines or SM porn sites, but through life experience and deep inward reflection.  They choose Female leaders who inspire them, challenge them, teach them, and ultimately make them better men. Such things would be fairly difficult for man hating egotists far too in love with themselves.

Myth 11: Female Supremacy is strictly a psychosexual phenomenon, and is intellectually untenable.

Anyone with respect for actual intellectual discussion will note that psychosexuality is in itself an area of vast intellectual interest; it has in fact consumed a great deal of our time, socially, artistically and academically. What draws men, weak and powerful, to a state of submission to Women? How do Women initiate and reinforce their dominance over the male psyche? To what lengths will men go in the pursuit of a coveted Woman, and what will they do to keep Her satisfied? How might male submission and psychosexuality be related to the biological imperative in an age when the axiom of the socially dominant male is waning?

I’ll stop there, and hope the point is obvious: how is the point illustrated above not an intellectual or rational subject? There really is no greater study than that of the most complex organization of matter we know: the human brain and the labyrinthine formulas for its motives.

Of course, if the intent of naysayers is simply to question how one arrives upon the precept of Female Supremacy by analytical or statistical means, the argument for Female Supremacy is up for the challenge. Comparative studies of the male and Female brain, the complexities of mosaicism in Female genetics, the staggering social effects of male violence, the overall behavioral differences between males and Females in social organization, and the rising health of societies that empower Women all might be good places to start.

Myth 12: Believing in the supremacy of Women over men is the same as believing in the supremacy of white people over black people.

This is a cleverly rhetorical statement, often employed to incite our collective disgust over racial discrimination. On its surface, the average reader may find this statement morally analogous, but it’s really little more than a bad company fallacy. The fact we use supremacy to describe our beliefs and practices is considered abhorrent to some due to the existence of racist groups which use supremacy arguments. This is an emotional, hot button analogy, and not a rational one, if one were to consider the differences between this group or that.

Female Supremacy, by its very name, concerns Female and male—two very different groups, not creatively imaginative ones as seen in ethnic or racial supremacy arguments. For instance, how does skin or hair color compare to structural differences between male and Female brains? How do comparisons over skin color correlate to provable differences between Female and male in aggression and violence, genetic composition, or biological roles / functions in reproduction?

The answer quite simply is they are not analogous arguments at all, but that fact doesn’t keep some from continuing to make the associations out of desire for shock value and rhetorically appealing to a populism.

Myth 13: Female Supremacy and Female superiority mean the same thing.

Some treat the two above phrases, supremacy and superiority, as synonymous, but they’re really not if you consider the definitions closely and in context to how they are used in the lifestyle. Superior generally means higher in grade, rank or amount. Superiority is the quality or condition of being superior. Supreme means highest in rank or authority, and supremacy means a state or condition of being superior to all others in authority.

When I say I believe in Female Supremacy, I am essentially saying that I advocate Women being superior to men in matters of authority. While I believe Females are superior to males in many ways, I am not saying Women are superior to men in all things (see myth 8). Supremacy, as it is often used with Female Supremacy, is about higher authority and power. Female Supremacists therefore believe Females should in general be the leaders, and males should follow.

In closing with this last myth, I would finally add this: before writing off those who believe in a way of life as this or that, it behooves everyone to consider how well versed they are in the very lifestyle they condemn so much, for it stands to reason that one who is not and never has been a part of the lifestyle they detest so much should perhaps avoid the practice of lecturing about it so negatively. Intellectual disagreement and debate, no matter how passionate, is never unwelcome; it is in fact a helpful exercise for both parties. I do understand supremacy arguments are hot buttons for many people. To a degree I can accept vehement resistance to such subjects, as long as it’s intelligent.  It is the pointless anger, outrageous caricaturizing, and purposefully sowed misinformation which has perpetuated unnecessary negativity over the subject of Female Supremacy.

With that in mind, I hope what I’ve written has helped to counter unfortunate truisms about the belief of Female Supremacy and the practice of Female-led relationships.  I look forward to and welcome any comments readers may have, as usual.

All text in this post © 2010 SaharahEve.com

Tags: Female beauty, Female empowerment, Female entitlement, Female leadership, Female superiority, Female supremacy, Feminism, misogyny, myths, philosophy, SaharahEve.com, sexism, slavery

This entry was posted on Friday, October 8th, 2010 at 11:19 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.