To all white people: please listen and do not critique. You are about to hear a master teacher. Take notes.
The first minute or so is introduced with music and images. Then we hear the myth of Yurugu. Then we meet Dr. Marimba Ani.
PLEASE NOTE: IN THE FIRST PART, at the 3 minute, 9 second mark, and for the next thirty seconds only, the audio is not working. But after that half-minute, it is. IN THE SECOND PART, the first minute is silent, then the scene changes and Dr. Ani begins her lecture.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Who's Your Daddy? I Mean Rapist. Tips on How to Prevent Female Child Sexual Abuse: if we're going to deal with reality, that is, and not the myths
This man raped and burned his ten year old step-daughter. His name is Chris Newbury, and he is from Wichita, KS. He was caught in 2009:
[image of this child rapist/incest perpetrating arsonist is from here]
This next image is of a father who raped his daughters and made them bear his children, and killed his children who were also his grandchildren. 47-year-old Daniel Rinehart faces charges of murder, statutory rape and incest, after admitting to investigators that he is the father of at least two of his daughter's four children. The bodies of two of the children were found earlier this month in coolers on the property. Investigators say one of the other daughters tipped them off about the alleged incest.
This is what he looks like. He has lived in Kansas City, Missouri:
[image of this father-raper of his one day old infant girl is from here]
What are Father's Rights Activists doing about this? What laws are they working to change so this cannot happen?
Prevent fathers, step-fathers, and father figures from having unsupervised time with any children (including, especially, their own) and their nieces, any future grandkids, and neighbor's kids.
That alone would decrease child sexual abuse DRAMATICALLY. But who cares about girls being safe, right? (When father's "wrongs" are at risk?)
Fathers who care about girls would don't work to make fathers across the board have unlimited access or unsupervised time with their daughters. Not if they are clued into the reality of who is doing the abusing.
Whenever a social movement is organised by and for a structurally powerful groups's rights of access to be strengthened, enforced, bolstered, or buoyed, the movement is NOT a human rights movement, but one working AGAINST the oppressed.
If fathers care about girls more than they care about themselves, they will make sure laws, policies, and customs are strict when it comes to men having unsupervised time with girls, ESPECIALLY INCLUDING the known and trusted men in the girls' lives.
How can you know that girls' perp is most likely to be her father and fight for the rights of fathers to have more time with girls? What kind of deranged human "wrongs" proponents would organise around THAT?
This next image is of a father who raped his daughters and made them bear his children, and killed his children who were also his grandchildren. 47-year-old Daniel Rinehart faces charges of murder, statutory rape and incest, after admitting to investigators that he is the father of at least two of his daughter's four children. The bodies of two of the children were found earlier this month in coolers on the property. Investigators say one of the other daughters tipped them off about the alleged incest.
This is what he looks like. He has lived in Kansas City, Missouri:
[image of this rapist/incesting/murdering father/grandfather is from here]
What follows is the image of a father who raped and videotaped the rape of his daughter, and posted it online. He is also accused of having sexually abused other girls. His name is Kenneth John Freeman (ironically) and he is a former Washington State Sheriff’s Deputy. He was arrested and jailed in Hong Kong on Wednesday. Freeman is wanted for multiple counts of child rape and for videotaping and photographing these assaults. In plain English, he raped his daughter several times and then posted video and pictures of it online. He posted $50,000 bond and fled. This is what he looks like:
The following photo is of Jonathan Goodrum, a 19 year-old man who has pleaded guilty of raping his 1-day-old daughter.
1-day-old and still in the hospital, after a routine examination, vaginal tears were found on the infant. Police are only saying the tears were made with an “unknown object”. He may only serve 11 months in jail, and while he won't be able to have access to his infant daughter, he may be able to have access to his one year old daughter. This is what he looks like. I am not sure where he lives.
What are Father's Rights Activists doing about this? What laws are they working to change so this cannot happen?
Prevent fathers, step-fathers, and father figures from having unsupervised time with any children (including, especially, their own) and their nieces, any future grandkids, and neighbor's kids.
That alone would decrease child sexual abuse DRAMATICALLY. But who cares about girls being safe, right? (When father's "wrongs" are at risk?)
Fathers who care about girls would don't work to make fathers across the board have unlimited access or unsupervised time with their daughters. Not if they are clued into the reality of who is doing the abusing.
Whenever a social movement is organised by and for a structurally powerful groups's rights of access to be strengthened, enforced, bolstered, or buoyed, the movement is NOT a human rights movement, but one working AGAINST the oppressed.
If fathers care about girls more than they care about themselves, they will make sure laws, policies, and customs are strict when it comes to men having unsupervised time with girls, ESPECIALLY INCLUDING the known and trusted men in the girls' lives.
How can you know that girls' perp is most likely to be her father and fight for the rights of fathers to have more time with girls? What kind of deranged human "wrongs" proponents would organise around THAT?
On Female, Intersex, or Male Superiority and the Biology of any form of Social Supremacy
I will make something clear that has already been made very clear here at A.R.P., over and over and over again.
But because many people don't read more than one or two posts here, if that, I want to make sure that it they stumble upon this one, they'll be clear about where I stand, ideologically, on the whole matter of female or male supremacy and superiority.
I oppose any and all forms of male or female or intersex "supremacy" or "superiority". I think anyone who holds views such as these are seriously misguided about how gender works politically and structurally, and tends to by-pass that and look at behavior as if behavior isn't shaped by social structures. And argument by "supremacists" on either side goes like this:
Yes, social structures shape us, but they are a product of biology, genetics, hormones, evolution, and pseudo-sciences and theories such as "sociobiology" and "evolutionary psychology" and "manifest destiny".
I offer up as piece of writing to engage with, here, for me to respond to, at the original site as well as here, this piece, copyrighted 2010 by/at SaharahEve.com. It is reprinted here for the purposes of political discusssion only. What is in brackets and in bold was written by me, for this blog post.
Female Supremacy Myths
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 a myriad arguments resulting from discourse on the idea. The storm of writing around Female Supremacy doesn’t end with alternative lifestyle forums, either, of course; you can find its defense and antithesis on message boards and blogs almost anywhere. 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 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?
[To answer succinctly: No.]
It seems we are fascinated with this idea in one form or another in our times. Female intellect, beauty, competence and mojo
[As contorted, coerced, shaped, distorted, limited, and subordinated by men and male supremacist structures and values?]
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 culture,
[I'd say "cultures"--hundreds and thousands of them, actually.]
surrounded by crumbling institutions. Without a doubt, we are living in an age of liberation from many old ways of male-oriented thinking.
[I think that's over-stating it. Women are not liberated, yet, in any meaningful way. There's relative freedom or lack of oppression in some forms, in some places, for some women. But globally, the situation is increasingly bleak. There are more female sexual slaves and wage slaves now than ever before, not just because there are more people now.]
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 ideological orgasms. 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, it 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.
[Okay. So that's two men and one woman. Solanas hardly counts, as she accomplished nothing, really. Dworkin counts as a feminist humanitarian, but not as someone who promoted female superiority, as you can see here, in her speech to women called "Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea".]
Crusades for the XX sex in big print aside, a number of websites and blogs have emerged over the years from an army of individuals postulating the superiority of the Woman.
[If we tally up the number of pro-male supremacist sites, including pornography sites, prostitution sites, corporate white male supremacist sites, patriarchal religious sites, antifeminist male supremacist blogs, and misogynistic mass media sites, what percentage of sites would you say are "postulating the superiority of the Woman"?]
and 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.
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,
[I'd call the Western "girl-power movement" a desperate attempt to carve out some sense of self-worth for girls because the women's movement never got that pendulous ball to swing from a strongly patriarchal position.]
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 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 genetic differences between the sexes 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.
[By men, yes. Not by women, generally speaking. But men have been humiliating men in many ways, in various ways across time. Men humiliating men is nothing new or restricted to the modern era.]
The traditional male archetype is a likely effigy for our pro-Female age, an image we seem to take collective pleasure in bringing down.
[Who is "we"?]
Pandora’s box is open. There is no doubt about that.
[I'd argue there is a doubt about it.]
Our time sets the theatre for Womankind to transcend the age-old patterns of social hegemony brought about by the male. With the playing fields leveled,
[I disagree strongly that there's any level playing field "between the sexes" anywhere on Earth. Not even in Scandinavia or contemporary Indigenous societies that have been grossly impacted by white het male supremacy. Please see this for more: http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2009/12/myth-of-level-playing-field.html]
Women are thriving as they never have before, and some are even 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.
[Do you mean the illusion or delusion of slipping social dominance?]
Some may argue that this is due to nothing more than an equalization of the sexes in society, and that men are making a pretty big deal over their loss of the boys club privilege.
[And where is this happening, exactly?]
Others see notions of Female Supremacy as a clear sign Women intend to take more once they have achieved complete equality with men. There are no doubt polarized viewpoints from either side of the Female Supremacy debate. During these exchanges, the very idea of Female Supremacy itself is repeatedly challenged, and naturally so.
[What do you mean when you write: "naturally so"?]
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.
[I am concerned by some of that antifeminist misinformation being woven into your writing here.]
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'm going out on a limb here, to say that "dictionary.com" is not a reliable information source for the many forms of womanism and feminism that have existed and currently exist.]
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.
[Your views are so white-centric as to be deeply racist and misogynistic to me.]
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.
[Because the actual forms of womanism and feminism that I know of don't value anyone being superior.]
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.
[I agree: sexual equality doesn't exist, not because it can't, but because pro-male supremacist men won't allow or support it's existence.]
[Only some forms of feminism sought to do this. Not all, and not even most.]
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.
[I'd argue a different point: to strive to be equal to men is showing a gross lack of imagination in human possibility.]
On political, social and economic fronts, the struggle for fairness and equality of opportunity is, of course, sound for both sexes,
[Depending on how "fairness" and "equality" are defined, of course. As Andrea Dworkin noted, if equality means women and men get to be rapists, that's not an equality feminists are fighting for.]
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.
[What you say is speculative and grossly misrepresents what and how many forms of sexual violence happen. Not that males commit more sexual violence against others than do females. But it's not due to physical aggression. Most incest perpetrators, for example, use no force at all. They misuse trust. Institutional coercion is far greater a factor in rape than "physical aggression". Social codes that tell women they must have sex with their husbands is coercive. Their husbands don't need to be.]
Males do not bear ovaries, give birth, or possess the hormonal drives in Females.
[Except for the males who do. Such as some AIS males. And there are many females who do not bear ovaries and who do not ever give birth, and who do not have the capability of giving birth.]
Males do not possess the same physical attributes, neuronal structure or genetic composition Females have.
[Not all females have the same neuronal structure or genetic composition either. And some males do have what is termed "female brain structre and genetic composition"--such as some intersex males.]
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.
[I'd say overwhelmed, dominated, and destroyed.]
by patriarchal systems, and more relevantly, methods. War and acquisition by force is by no means a stranger to us.
[Who is "us"? Indigenous people who have lived on the Earth sustainably for ten thousand years before white male supremacy destroyed their eco/social systems?]
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.
[I strongly recommend that you read Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior, by Marimba Ani, as what you say leaves out one key factor: race and racism. Whiteness has done as much to destroy the world as manhood in its current "civilised" forms.]
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.
[I agree.]
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.
[I sort of agree with you here, that we can't make assumptions about a woman-led world would be like based on the practices of a few women who had to rule as men rule. But what are "feminine qualities" and "masculine qualities"? You seem to be implying they exist, de facto, beyond or outside patriarchal systems and civilisations. They are profoundly relative, variable, and contradictory. So, for some "being smart not brawly" is masculine, and in others it is feminine. So what are you speaking of when you say "feminine" and "masculine"--which cultures at which times in history?]
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.
[Huh? To me, this doesn't even make sense. It is so tautological as to be meaningless. We can't know what women or men would even BE if patriarchy didn't exist. Let's get rid of patriarchy first, and then see what the values "for being human and humane" are. And go from there. To posit a "woman-dominated society" based on what women are socialised to be in patriarchal contexts, is to not say much about what society will look like post-patriarchy.]
[For heterosexual couples who conceive their own children, yes. For everyone else, no. Your commentary here is profoundly heterosexist. There are thousands of children in need of adoption. No men are "biologically needed" to make sure they get parented. If good male parents parent them, great. But those men aren't needed to biologically produce the children.]
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.
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 the male’s sperm has fertilized the Female’s egg, the male role in reproduction becomes supportive, at best.
[Yes. Given that battery of pregnant women by husbands and boyfriends increases once men learn "their" girlfriend or wive is pregnant, "supportive" is about the best that we can hope for.]
The next nine months of pregnancy and the many years following it in child rearing are the Mother’s terriroty in almost all cases. The father, by comparison, is the more expendable parent.
[Unless the mother dies in childbirth, or can't or won't parent, or doesn't wish to parent, and the father is known, and around, and available and capable of parenting.]
Though his biological contribution is vital, it is not equal to the Mother’s contribution.
["Mothering" and "fathering" are not biological phenomena. They are social ones. Motherhood is one of many patriarchal institutions that is steeped in misogynist biologism.]
The egg exists within the Female, and the resulting new life is housed within Her while it grows.
[Housed? The fetus is, in fact, part of her. It isn't in any way separate from her until the cord is cut. That's one of many things that is fucked up about attempts to legislate "the rights of the fetus" as separate from the rights of the woman nourishing that fetus.]
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.
[What are "primitive sources"? This sounds pretty anti-Indigenous and racist to me.]
Human threat, in all its diverse forms, is very real and quite relevant, and has been the larger enemy for thousands of years.
[Human threat is not the problem, imo. Rape--not just the threat of rape, Mass murder--not the threat of it, the mass spreading of disease, the bombing the shit out of places, pollution, colonialism, genocide, slavery, corporate greed and political corruption has been the problem, not the threat of those things.]
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.
[For what, exactly? I'm not disagreeing, exactly. I'm just curious to know in what ways you seen men as needed? Surely lesbian separatists don't "need" men, right?]
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.
[Yes. Pregnancy kills women at alarming rates. Pumping semen into vaginas is far less lethal for men. Even given HIV, it is women who are far more at risk for infection than men, if both are exposed during that sexual act. And men spread HPV that way, which can cause terminal cervical cancer in women. There's no lethal STD or STI that women give men more than men to women],/b>
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”.
[I think traditionally sexual het white men have far more of a grip on controlling reality than anyone in the BDSM subculture.]
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.
[To the extent that female supremacy is even socially real beyond, say, a hundred women, I'd agree with you. I'm not convinced it is socially real beyond a few hundred women, though.]
[I believe seeing any form of difference as an opportunity to promote and generate dominance is a male supremacist way of thinking.]
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 apparently didn’t get that memo. 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.
[I'd say the process of being femaled as a human, or girled or womaned is one of being subjected to male supremacist imperatives, values, forms of force, coercion, exploitation, violation, and subordination.]
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 left-brained thinking.
[This notion of being "left-brained is problematic in my view. For isn't it popularly believed that women's brains function in a more balanced way, not in a "left-brained" way? I don't pay much attention to the social science of making gender into an essentially biological or physiological phenomenon. So correct me if I'm off here.]
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 very idea that "better" and "higher" go together, as opposed, to, say, "better" and "deeper" is, to me, a form of male supremacist imaging and conceptualising. Why is something "higher" in any way better? Any martial arts teacher will tell you that you are stronger the closer to the ground, and the more grounded, your core is. Implicit in the "higher is better" concept, is an underlying one that promotes Earth being below humanity, emotions being beneath intellect and logic, women being beneath men, socially and sexually, and non-divine men being beneath divine men. To me, this whole way of constructing reality is grossly white and male supremacist. So a "sky-god" is seen as more rational and worthy of praise than an "earth-god".]
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.
[Catharine A. MacKinnnon and other feminists make a compelling point that "maternalism" and "empathy" are, in part, dimensions of a form of Stockhold Syndrome, in which women learn, early on, to be kind and considerate to those who we all know can and do kill them if they get too uppity. I don't think it is reasonable to pretend that context of force and coercion, of hostility and brutality, is not "at work" in creating the psychologies of women and men.]
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.
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.
[LOL!! I like this point very much!! Brava! Any notions of "female supremacy" or "female superiority" must be sought out in text, not avoided in society. Such "notions" are just that. But male supremacy is socially impossible to not encounter. No woman or girl I know can be put on a "do not call" list to no longer receive social messages that men are superior to and supreme over women.]
Chances are you’re reading this text on a blog (mine, I hope),
[Er, or mine? ;) Let me know if you'd like me to alter how I present this here, or not post this here.]
or in a PDF you came upon by the course of your own natural curiosity
[I really don't understand your use of the term "natural" throughout this piece of writing.]
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.
[How and where does that happen? Harriet Harman is one woman who is promoting pro-egalitarian legislation, yes? So what "pro-Female" and "feminist" and "women's rights activists" are going "overboard"? What does "overboard" mean in a society that is thoroughly male supremacist? And, do these women heckle men as much as, say, British white men heckle each other in Parliamentary meetings?]
I’m aware of a general taint of misandry in the media.
[Taint? I'd call it a antifeminist distortion; a gross misprepresentation of reality; one of many forms of anti-woman propaganda in male supremacist blogs and other 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,
[What women "take by force"? You're planting an idea in the heads of your readers that women taking anything "by force": like what? A government? A nation? A plot of land? A legal system? A religious institution that has been patriarchal for centuries? What are you talking about?]
unlike the opposite of Female Supremacy, that being the painfully well known application of Male Supremacy.
[Which isn't socially and structurally manifest where?]
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?
[Yes. I think that is an excellent point. Brava.]
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.
[Aside from your piece of writing, I'm not aware of anyone promoting "female supremacy" at all. All I see around me, interrupting and rupturing the lives of women is male supremacist values, laws, customs, and practices.]
[In some societies more than others. In some the physical size of female and male is not so disparate and women do as much, if not more, physical labor than men.]
I have no interest in carrying out my old refrigerator, though I have far more in a man carrying me out of a burning building.
[Or a woman carrying you out, I presume.]
Men, on average, tend to be taller than Women.
[What societies have you studied and lived in?]
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.
[I find this remark speculative. I'd say that when either males or females are physically aggressive, the stronger ones tend to also do harm, where the weaker ones do not. In the white societies I am aware of, there is a strength differential, generally, that favors men harming women more than women harming men when either is physically aggressive. I also think boys are taught that being physically aggressive, in white hetmale supremacist societies, is part of being a white het male, is condoned and mandated in various ways. Girls are taught that being physically aggressive is not "appropriate" or "good". And if "other" people are taught that if you want to be as statused, you'd better engage in that form of violence.]
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 feel safest socially with the people who carry and know how to use a gun and other weapons, or who have an attack dog with them/us. And that could be a male or a female person.]
I hope the above words begin to point out the more serious fact that a Female Supremacist finds males considerably useful and wanted; they are in fact an important component of Female Supremacy. The doctrine I know does not seek to eliminate men, but involve them, through their complementary natural abilities
[What are those, exactly?]
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.
[How would you describe or define that worth of men? And why do you think it is natural?]
At one time, these approaches were fairly novel for bold pioneers in the world of industrializing 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.
[For me, these are some of the way pimps and sex slavers control and possess women, including by teaching them how to behave in a pseudo-dominating way with men who have more social-structural power than they ever will, in completely male supremacist contexts.]
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.
[I believe this is because looking at the power of men--not psychologically and sociologically, but politically, systemically, and structurally--is effectively banished as a mass/dominant media activity. To see what men do as a product of being male in a society that imbues and entitles males to behave in abusive, controlling, and domineering ways towards all people who are not deemed "male".]
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.
[Do you realise you are speaking about such a tiny portion of the sexxxism industries which are both "unfair AND unfree trade", run by sex slavers, traffickers, and pimps, that even mentioning it without mentioning what usually happens is a form of pro-patriarchal propaganda? How many "girls" make $3000/hr. compared, to, say the girls who are being raped throughout Asia by white men? Do you know how much those girls make? And how "domme" they feel? Have you asked any of them? Have you asked any single child of the 1.3 million children or women being abused as sex slaves in India? Have you made contact with the girls and women who have escaped those systems of horror where men stick their dicks in nine year old girls, and who help other girls escape? Do you not understand that economies are coercive to girls, boys, and women disproportionately? Do you know that it is poor, not rich, girls, boys, women, trans people, and men who are vulnerable to being so used and abused, sold and owned?]
Somewhere, however, sincere explorations were 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 it is understandably disheartening.
[Do you consider the traffick of sex slaves, often girls, to be "a maze of illusions"? I consider it an astoundingly disgusting and horrifying reality. There's nothing illusory about 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.
[So are you saying that being in a sexxxism industry disqualifies a woman for wanting, or dreaming of being in a superior position, socially, to men?]
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 find the term "overglorified prostitute" to be abstract and oxymoronic.]
I tend to suspect the locus for 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
["unscrupulous prostitutes"? What are the options? What does being a scrupulous prostitute mean in a world which is run by unscrupulous corporate pimps and politicians?]
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 do—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 cynicism that inevitably builds roads to self-fulfilling prophecies.
[I find your analysis woefully individualistic and sociological, rather than grounded in any understanding of how systems of male supremacist power actually mold, shape, protect, and privilege some people to behave in certain ways.]
[Generated and ubiquitously "told" by pimps and pornographers, and other rapists, using real women in systems of exploitation and sexist violence.]
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 definately is.
[It goes without say that many forms of narcissism and misogyny are so normalised in patriarchal/male supremacist societies in which men dominate women, that the abuse of dominance or misogyny is not even identified as such. See, for example, this writing, which notes many forms of "Everyday Male Chauvinism".]
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.
[What tools are those, that nature gave them? An understanding of how best to operate in a male supremacist system? What's "natural" about that?]
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.
[We must note that any procurers, or W.I.M.P.s or "johns" who rent or buy women for the purpose of being treated as a "submissive" are still fully in control of that situation. There is not social or structural release of power. Their treatment as submissives is ruled by men, by pimps, and by pornographers, who profit from women treating men this way. The men often benefit as well, due to this phenomenon of men getting to act out as if powerless while in the rest of their hours of the day actually controlling society in various ways: as judges, priests, doctors, lawyers, educators, politicians, historians, etc.]
How do Women initiate and reinforce their dominance over the male psyche?
[Other than in the occasional relationship in which the woman is dominant in some ways to the man, or is controlling of him, or abusive to him chronically in ways he is not to her as well, does this actually manifest in the actual world. The overwhelming phenomenon is that women are ruled by patriarchal social imperatives that are not in women's or girls' interests, politically, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, or socially.]
To what lengths will men go in the pursuit of a coveted Woman, and what will they do to keep Her satisfied?
[They may pay her pimp a lot of money to keep having the experience of being temporarily and artificially dominated, never structurally dominated.]
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 think that is a hypothetical question that needs grounding in reality. As we know, older men abuse younger women and girls well into their 80s, if not beyond, and women of their own age as well. Many women experience a form of liberation when their abusive husband finally dies.]
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.
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.
When I say I believe in Female Supremacy, I am essentially saying that I advocate Women being in 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.
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?
[To answer succinctly: No.]
It seems we are fascinated with this idea in one form or another in our times. Female intellect, beauty, competence and mojo
[As contorted, coerced, shaped, distorted, limited, and subordinated by men and male supremacist structures and values?]
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 culture,
[I'd say "cultures"--hundreds and thousands of them, actually.]
surrounded by crumbling institutions. Without a doubt, we are living in an age of liberation from many old ways of male-oriented thinking.
[I think that's over-stating it. Women are not liberated, yet, in any meaningful way. There's relative freedom or lack of oppression in some forms, in some places, for some women. But globally, the situation is increasingly bleak. There are more female sexual slaves and wage slaves now than ever before, not just because there are more people now.]
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 ideological orgasms. 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, it 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.
[Okay. So that's two men and one woman. Solanas hardly counts, as she accomplished nothing, really. Dworkin counts as a feminist humanitarian, but not as someone who promoted female superiority, as you can see here, in her speech to women called "Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea".]
Crusades for the XX sex in big print aside, a number of websites and blogs have emerged over the years from an army of individuals postulating the superiority of the Woman.
[If we tally up the number of pro-male supremacist sites, including pornography sites, prostitution sites, corporate white male supremacist sites, patriarchal religious sites, antifeminist male supremacist blogs, and misogynistic mass media sites, what percentage of sites would you say are "postulating the superiority of the Woman"?]
and 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.
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,
[I'd call the Western "girl-power movement" a desperate attempt to carve out some sense of self-worth for girls because the women's movement never got that pendulous ball to swing from a strongly patriarchal position.]
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 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 genetic differences between the sexes 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.
[By men, yes. Not by women, generally speaking. But men have been humiliating men in many ways, in various ways across time. Men humiliating men is nothing new or restricted to the modern era.]
The traditional male archetype is a likely effigy for our pro-Female age, an image we seem to take collective pleasure in bringing down.
[Who is "we"?]
Pandora’s box is open. There is no doubt about that.
[I'd argue there is a doubt about it.]
Our time sets the theatre for Womankind to transcend the age-old patterns of social hegemony brought about by the male. With the playing fields leveled,
[I disagree strongly that there's any level playing field "between the sexes" anywhere on Earth. Not even in Scandinavia or contemporary Indigenous societies that have been grossly impacted by white het male supremacy. Please see this for more: http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2009/12/myth-of-level-playing-field.html]
Women are thriving as they never have before, and some are even 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.
[Do you mean the illusion or delusion of slipping social dominance?]
Some may argue that this is due to nothing more than an equalization of the sexes in society, and that men are making a pretty big deal over their loss of the boys club privilege.
[And where is this happening, exactly?]
Others see notions of Female Supremacy as a clear sign Women intend to take more once they have achieved complete equality with men. There are no doubt polarized viewpoints from either side of the Female Supremacy debate. During these exchanges, the very idea of Female Supremacy itself is repeatedly challenged, and naturally so.
[What do you mean when you write: "naturally so"?]
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.
[I am concerned by some of that antifeminist misinformation being woven into your writing here.]
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.
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.[I'm going out on a limb here, to say that "dictionary.com" is not a reliable information source for the many forms of womanism and feminism that have existed and currently exist.]
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.
[Your views are so white-centric as to be deeply racist and misogynistic to me.]
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.
[Because the actual forms of womanism and feminism that I know of don't value anyone being superior.]
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.
[I agree: sexual equality doesn't exist, not because it can't, but because pro-male supremacist men won't allow or support it's existence.]
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.[Only some forms of feminism sought to do this. Not all, and not even most.]
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.
[I'd argue a different point: to strive to be equal to men is showing a gross lack of imagination in human possibility.]
On political, social and economic fronts, the struggle for fairness and equality of opportunity is, of course, sound for both sexes,
[Depending on how "fairness" and "equality" are defined, of course. As Andrea Dworkin noted, if equality means women and men get to be rapists, that's not an equality feminists are fighting for.]
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.
[What you say is speculative and grossly misrepresents what and how many forms of sexual violence happen. Not that males commit more sexual violence against others than do females. But it's not due to physical aggression. Most incest perpetrators, for example, use no force at all. They misuse trust. Institutional coercion is far greater a factor in rape than "physical aggression". Social codes that tell women they must have sex with their husbands is coercive. Their husbands don't need to be.]
Males do not bear ovaries, give birth, or possess the hormonal drives in Females.
[Except for the males who do. Such as some AIS males. And there are many females who do not bear ovaries and who do not ever give birth, and who do not have the capability of giving birth.]
Males do not possess the same physical attributes, neuronal structure or genetic composition Females have.
[Not all females have the same neuronal structure or genetic composition either. And some males do have what is termed "female brain structre and genetic composition"--such as some intersex males.]
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[I'd say overwhelmed, dominated, and destroyed.]
by patriarchal systems, and more relevantly, methods. War and acquisition by force is by no means a stranger to us.
[Who is "us"? Indigenous people who have lived on the Earth sustainably for ten thousand years before white male supremacy destroyed their eco/social systems?]
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.
[I strongly recommend that you read Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior, by Marimba Ani, as what you say leaves out one key factor: race and racism. Whiteness has done as much to destroy the world as manhood in its current "civilised" forms.]
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.
[I agree.]
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.
[I sort of agree with you here, that we can't make assumptions about a woman-led world would be like based on the practices of a few women who had to rule as men rule. But what are "feminine qualities" and "masculine qualities"? You seem to be implying they exist, de facto, beyond or outside patriarchal systems and civilisations. They are profoundly relative, variable, and contradictory. So, for some "being smart not brawly" is masculine, and in others it is feminine. So what are you speaking of when you say "feminine" and "masculine"--which cultures at which times in history?]
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.
[Huh? To me, this doesn't even make sense. It is so tautological as to be meaningless. We can't know what women or men would even BE if patriarchy didn't exist. Let's get rid of patriarchy first, and then see what the values "for being human and humane" are. And go from there. To posit a "woman-dominated society" based on what women are socialised to be in patriarchal contexts, is to not say much about what society will look like post-patriarchy.]
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.[For heterosexual couples who conceive their own children, yes. For everyone else, no. Your commentary here is profoundly heterosexist. There are thousands of children in need of adoption. No men are "biologically needed" to make sure they get parented. If good male parents parent them, great. But those men aren't needed to biologically produce the children.]
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.
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 the male’s sperm has fertilized the Female’s egg, the male role in reproduction becomes supportive, at best.
[Yes. Given that battery of pregnant women by husbands and boyfriends increases once men learn "their" girlfriend or wive is pregnant, "supportive" is about the best that we can hope for.]
The next nine months of pregnancy and the many years following it in child rearing are the Mother’s terriroty in almost all cases. The father, by comparison, is the more expendable parent.
[Unless the mother dies in childbirth, or can't or won't parent, or doesn't wish to parent, and the father is known, and around, and available and capable of parenting.]
Though his biological contribution is vital, it is not equal to the Mother’s contribution.
["Mothering" and "fathering" are not biological phenomena. They are social ones. Motherhood is one of many patriarchal institutions that is steeped in misogynist biologism.]
The egg exists within the Female, and the resulting new life is housed within Her while it grows.
[Housed? The fetus is, in fact, part of her. It isn't in any way separate from her until the cord is cut. That's one of many things that is fucked up about attempts to legislate "the rights of the fetus" as separate from the rights of the woman nourishing that fetus.]
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.
[What are "primitive sources"? This sounds pretty anti-Indigenous and racist to me.]
Human threat, in all its diverse forms, is very real and quite relevant, and has been the larger enemy for thousands of years.
[Human threat is not the problem, imo. Rape--not just the threat of rape, Mass murder--not the threat of it, the mass spreading of disease, the bombing the shit out of places, pollution, colonialism, genocide, slavery, corporate greed and political corruption has been the problem, not the threat of those things.]
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.
[For what, exactly? I'm not disagreeing, exactly. I'm just curious to know in what ways you seen men as needed? Surely lesbian separatists don't "need" men, right?]
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.
[Yes. Pregnancy kills women at alarming rates. Pumping semen into vaginas is far less lethal for men. Even given HIV, it is women who are far more at risk for infection than men, if both are exposed during that sexual act. And men spread HPV that way, which can cause terminal cervical cancer in women. There's no lethal STD or STI that women give men more than men to women],/b>
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.[I think traditionally sexual het white men have far more of a grip on controlling reality than anyone in the BDSM subculture.]
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.
[To the extent that female supremacy is even socially real beyond, say, a hundred women, I'd agree with you. I'm not convinced it is socially real beyond a few hundred women, though.]
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 very well be true, I’m not certain how such a claim can be proven conclusively. That aside, there is a more robust assertion that Female Supremacy and its underpinning philosophy is a male construct,[I believe seeing any form of difference as an opportunity to promote and generate dominance is a male supremacist way of thinking.]
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 apparently didn’t get that memo. 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.
[I'd say the process of being femaled as a human, or girled or womaned is one of being subjected to male supremacist imperatives, values, forms of force, coercion, exploitation, violation, and subordination.]
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 left-brained thinking.
[This notion of being "left-brained is problematic in my view. For isn't it popularly believed that women's brains function in a more balanced way, not in a "left-brained" way? I don't pay much attention to the social science of making gender into an essentially biological or physiological phenomenon. So correct me if I'm off here.]
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 very idea that "better" and "higher" go together, as opposed, to, say, "better" and "deeper" is, to me, a form of male supremacist imaging and conceptualising. Why is something "higher" in any way better? Any martial arts teacher will tell you that you are stronger the closer to the ground, and the more grounded, your core is. Implicit in the "higher is better" concept, is an underlying one that promotes Earth being below humanity, emotions being beneath intellect and logic, women being beneath men, socially and sexually, and non-divine men being beneath divine men. To me, this whole way of constructing reality is grossly white and male supremacist. So a "sky-god" is seen as more rational and worthy of praise than an "earth-god".]
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.
[Catharine A. MacKinnnon and other feminists make a compelling point that "maternalism" and "empathy" are, in part, dimensions of a form of Stockhold Syndrome, in which women learn, early on, to be kind and considerate to those who we all know can and do kill them if they get too uppity. I don't think it is reasonable to pretend that context of force and coercion, of hostility and brutality, is not "at work" in creating the psychologies of women and men.]
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.
[LOL!! I like this point very much!! Brava! Any notions of "female supremacy" or "female superiority" must be sought out in text, not avoided in society. Such "notions" are just that. But male supremacy is socially impossible to not encounter. No woman or girl I know can be put on a "do not call" list to no longer receive social messages that men are superior to and supreme over women.]
Chances are you’re reading this text on a blog (mine, I hope),
[Er, or mine? ;) Let me know if you'd like me to alter how I present this here, or not post this here.]
or in a PDF you came upon by the course of your own natural curiosity
[I really don't understand your use of the term "natural" throughout this piece of writing.]
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.
[How and where does that happen? Harriet Harman is one woman who is promoting pro-egalitarian legislation, yes? So what "pro-Female" and "feminist" and "women's rights activists" are going "overboard"? What does "overboard" mean in a society that is thoroughly male supremacist? And, do these women heckle men as much as, say, British white men heckle each other in Parliamentary meetings?]
I’m aware of a general taint of misandry in the media.
[Taint? I'd call it a antifeminist distortion; a gross misprepresentation of reality; one of many forms of anti-woman propaganda in male supremacist blogs and other 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,
[What women "take by force"? You're planting an idea in the heads of your readers that women taking anything "by force": like what? A government? A nation? A plot of land? A legal system? A religious institution that has been patriarchal for centuries? What are you talking about?]
unlike the opposite of Female Supremacy, that being the painfully well known application of Male Supremacy.
[Which isn't socially and structurally manifest where?]
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?
[Yes. I think that is an excellent point. Brava.]
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.
[Aside from your piece of writing, I'm not aware of anyone promoting "female supremacy" at all. All I see around me, interrupting and rupturing the lives of women is male supremacist values, laws, customs, and practices.]
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 is that straw Woman? Surely, on average, men are physically stronger than Women.[In some societies more than others. In some the physical size of female and male is not so disparate and women do as much, if not more, physical labor than men.]
I have no interest in carrying out my old refrigerator, though I have far more in a man carrying me out of a burning building.
[Or a woman carrying you out, I presume.]
Men, on average, tend to be taller than Women.
[What societies have you studied and lived in?]
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.
[I find this remark speculative. I'd say that when either males or females are physically aggressive, the stronger ones tend to also do harm, where the weaker ones do not. In the white societies I am aware of, there is a strength differential, generally, that favors men harming women more than women harming men when either is physically aggressive. I also think boys are taught that being physically aggressive, in white hetmale supremacist societies, is part of being a white het male, is condoned and mandated in various ways. Girls are taught that being physically aggressive is not "appropriate" or "good". And if "other" people are taught that if you want to be as statused, you'd better engage in that form of violence.]
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 feel safest socially with the people who carry and know how to use a gun and other weapons, or who have an attack dog with them/us. And that could be a male or a female person.]
I hope the above words begin to point out the more serious fact that a Female Supremacist finds males considerably useful and wanted; they are in fact an important component of Female Supremacy. The doctrine I know does not seek to eliminate men, but involve them, through their complementary natural abilities
[What are those, exactly?]
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.
[How would you describe or define that worth of men? And why do you think it is natural?]
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 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.
[For me, these are some of the way pimps and sex slavers control and possess women, including by teaching them how to behave in a pseudo-dominating way with men who have more social-structural power than they ever will, in completely male supremacist contexts.]
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.
[I believe this is because looking at the power of men--not psychologically and sociologically, but politically, systemically, and structurally--is effectively banished as a mass/dominant media activity. To see what men do as a product of being male in a society that imbues and entitles males to behave in abusive, controlling, and domineering ways towards all people who are not deemed "male".]
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.
[Do you realise you are speaking about such a tiny portion of the sexxxism industries which are both "unfair AND unfree trade", run by sex slavers, traffickers, and pimps, that even mentioning it without mentioning what usually happens is a form of pro-patriarchal propaganda? How many "girls" make $3000/hr. compared, to, say the girls who are being raped throughout Asia by white men? Do you know how much those girls make? And how "domme" they feel? Have you asked any of them? Have you asked any single child of the 1.3 million children or women being abused as sex slaves in India? Have you made contact with the girls and women who have escaped those systems of horror where men stick their dicks in nine year old girls, and who help other girls escape? Do you not understand that economies are coercive to girls, boys, and women disproportionately? Do you know that it is poor, not rich, girls, boys, women, trans people, and men who are vulnerable to being so used and abused, sold and owned?]
Somewhere, however, sincere explorations were 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 it is understandably disheartening.
[Do you consider the traffick of sex slaves, often girls, to be "a maze of illusions"? I consider it an astoundingly disgusting and horrifying reality. There's nothing illusory about 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.
[So are you saying that being in a sexxxism industry disqualifies a woman for wanting, or dreaming of being in a superior position, socially, to men?]
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 find the term "overglorified prostitute" to be abstract and oxymoronic.]
I tend to suspect the locus for 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
["unscrupulous prostitutes"? What are the options? What does being a scrupulous prostitute mean in a world which is run by unscrupulous corporate pimps and politicians?]
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 do—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 cynicism that inevitably builds roads to self-fulfilling prophecies.
[I find your analysis woefully individualistic and sociological, rather than grounded in any understanding of how systems of male supremacist power actually mold, shape, protect, and privilege some people to behave in certain ways.]
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.[Generated and ubiquitously "told" by pimps and pornographers, and other rapists, using real women in systems of exploitation and sexist violence.]
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 definately is.
[It goes without say that many forms of narcissism and misogyny are so normalised in patriarchal/male supremacist societies in which men dominate women, that the abuse of dominance or misogyny is not even identified as such. See, for example, this writing, which notes many forms of "Everyday Male Chauvinism".]
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.
[What tools are those, that nature gave them? An understanding of how best to operate in a male supremacist system? What's "natural" about that?]
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 a vast area of 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?[We must note that any procurers, or W.I.M.P.s or "johns" who rent or buy women for the purpose of being treated as a "submissive" are still fully in control of that situation. There is not social or structural release of power. Their treatment as submissives is ruled by men, by pimps, and by pornographers, who profit from women treating men this way. The men often benefit as well, due to this phenomenon of men getting to act out as if powerless while in the rest of their hours of the day actually controlling society in various ways: as judges, priests, doctors, lawyers, educators, politicians, historians, etc.]
How do Women initiate and reinforce their dominance over the male psyche?
[Other than in the occasional relationship in which the woman is dominant in some ways to the man, or is controlling of him, or abusive to him chronically in ways he is not to her as well, does this actually manifest in the actual world. The overwhelming phenomenon is that women are ruled by patriarchal social imperatives that are not in women's or girls' interests, politically, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, or socially.]
To what lengths will men go in the pursuit of a coveted Woman, and what will they do to keep Her satisfied?
[They may pay her pimp a lot of money to keep having the experience of being temporarily and artificially dominated, never structurally dominated.]
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 think that is a hypothetical question that needs grounding in reality. As we know, older men abuse younger women and girls well into their 80s, if not beyond, and women of their own age as well. Many women experience a form of liberation when their abusive husband finally dies.]
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 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 in 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.
Responses to “Female Supremacy Myths”
Julian Real says: Re: your rather crude remark about “Andrea Dworkin’s ideological… ”
I welcome you to find a better example of a humanitarian, and fighter for the oppressed, naming truths about oppressors that no one did before her so clearly and without apology. (It’s the “without apology part” that men especially resent. She wasn’t deferential to their feelings. That doesn’t equal hate. Or, if it does, then all the husbands and boyfriends, politicians, priests, and partnered het male professors who are not deferential to their wives and girlfriends are virulent woman-haters.
You may want to gather up facts before you post such false information. Have you read this, by Andrea Dworkin on the dangers of any ideology that promotes biological superiority based on (any) sex/gender?
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIID.html
Funny how anyone making their cases against radical feminists don’t bother to point to THAT essay/speech, hmmm?
Or to this, by radical feminist Alice Walker (one of “those” second-wavers unlike her daughter Rebecca):
http://www.alicewalkersblog.com/2009/12/letter-to-tiger-woods-from-alice-walker.html
I welcome you correct or post an addendum to that portion what you want to say, as both women, also Catharine A. MacKinnon, are examples of a radical feminists who were and are opposed to any such notions of “female supremacy” or “female superiority”, and as for (Dworkin or MacKinnon, for that matter) being a man-hater, this is one of those silly internet rumors, passed around and around, which is also refuted, at Snopes.com, here:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp (See portion on A. Dworkin)
A cornerstone of radical feminist theory and practice is to not hold that either gender or any gender, or any sex is biologically superior to any other.
Speaking about S.C.U.M. Manifesto as if it represents second wave feminism is like claiming that Mein Kampf represents all of German philosophy in the middle of the last century, with one notable difference: Nazi Germans DID rule; Valerie Solanas couldn’t even get her writing back from Any Warhol. Hitler oversaw atrocity called HaShoah. Valerie Solanas shot and missed killing Andy Warhol.
If anyone thinks those two people were, in any way, “equal”, they probably also believe that Black folks in the U.S. who are harassed by police and occasionally don’t appreciate it are equal to the force of U.S. white heterosexual male supremacist police departments.
And white gay men who “Act Up” have precisely the same amount of structural power as heterosexual white men. (Uh, not.)
You see how some of this works. Why do you promote more myths here?
Oprah's Conversation with Child Molesters: the extended interviews
[image of white heterosexual male rapers and molesters of girls is from *here*]
***TRIGGER WARNING***: THIS MATERIAL MAY DEEPLY TRIGGER ANY SURVIVORS OF RAPE OR CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT OR OTHER FORMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY ADULTS OR RELATIVES.
Oprah's Conversation with Child Molesters: beyond what you saw on television today, if you watched. What follows is from www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Oprahs-Conversation-with-Child-Molesters*.
The Oprah Winfrey Show |
February 08, 2010
She calls it the most honest conversation she's ever had with sex offenders. Oprah sits down with four admitted child molesters for a frank, graphic discussion of their crimes. Watch the two-hour conversation in its entirety—an Oprah.com exclusive.
Watch Part 1
Watch Part 2
Watch Part 3
If you or someone you know is a victim of sexual abuse, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE
These are normal men speaking out about something normal het white men do every day somewhere. Every day. Somewhere. Other men, and a few women, also do this--molest, assault, violate children, sometimes their own. With men, the victims are most often their own daughters or nieces or granddaughters or younger sisters or female cousins. Most often.
What this program demonstrates is how patriarchal atrocities happen because men are dishonest with one another, and do not stop each other from harming children. We do not prevent harmful access to children, and increasingly, laws are put in place that make perpetrating father's access "a right", that is not in the best interest of the child. The child's right to not be violated is violated by laws men work to get passed to have access to children, partly in order to violate them.
This means that it is not the stranger in the car offering candy we have to worry about MOST. We MOST have to worry about and stop the father, grandfather, uncle, male cousin, or brother. That's who must be stopped from having access to girls. Less access is needed. So who are the groups fighting for MORE ACCESS? And I have to wonder: who will benefit from this expansion of "rights of access to violate one's children"?
Here at A.R.P., comments about this show are welcome from anyone who reads and abides by the comments policy (see top right of main page).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)