Women - The Naturally Dominant Gender? Part 2 (94)

That's a fact.

Can we all go home now?

"Don't Dream It - Be It" - The Rocky Horror Show 1973

That may well be true, but only if you're pussy whipped. Accepting of course that if you're a submissive hetrosexual male then that might be your goal.

Although not too sure where being thrifty with finances comes into it. Does thrift equal dominance?

Are you suggesting that women dictate when you're to both go shopping and then just buy the in store budget brands? Or that the woman dictates where you go for your holidays and then ensures it's somewhere cheap?

I hear Bradford's nice this time of year, and they've got a nice Liddels and a Primark.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.

Edited 26 Jan 10, 2:55 AM by tony999

You may have to put with certain annoyances with any woman, like having to trawl shops for hours but it's generally reciprocated, give and take.

And Im not convinced women have total control over the sex. Granted men are weaker-willed in this area but if the woman wants to mess the guy around too much in this area he might just find another partner.

Edited 26 Jan 10, 9:54 AM by Inner_Space

That comment succinctly sums up this topic. Generalizations of superiority based on gender , like race, or religion are based on ignoring human individuality or diversity.

However, having read both threads on this topic I do think most people have not really studied what the female supremicists argue. If you are are going to successfully counter these people you need to put in a bit more effort and thought than the one liner write offs that have dominated this discussion.

There is no doubt female supremacist ideas seem to be on the increase. I suppose its a by product of an increasingly confident generation of young women who are outperforming men educationally.

150 years ago it was a social given that women were inferior to men. Most women were also socialised to believe this. At that time a women was literally the property of her husband.

You will struggle to find any women or men who do not uphold the ideas of equality today. The old chauvanists are dying off. In the media however you constantly see questioning if men are up to women's standards. The new threat is arrogant hyper confident women feeling so empowered that they equate success with condescending attitudes to men. They are often assisted in the process by extremely submissive men for whom these ideas fit straight into to their self negating fantasies. Actually, I suspect most female supremacists are men! In fairness though I am not trying to lump all submissive men in this way. We are still talking about a small minority (I hope!)

On current trends women are set to predominate in ALL the professions within 20-30 years in the UK. This pattern is likely to be repeated across the developed world. Of course economic power and greater social status has no direct relationship to innate superiority. However, it makes it easier to slip into such lazy assumptions. Radical Feminist writing is often very misandristic and presents all men as abusers, rapists and patriarchal oppressors in contrast to women who are victims. In reality there is an increasing climate of misandry and double standards in our culture at present which puts young men at a distinct disadvantage. Jokes at womens expense are sexist or misogyny while those at the expense of men are just fun.

Lets be devils advocate though. What are the key female supremacist arguments you are likely to confront?

Firstly they are fond of quoting biological and neurological research and cherry picking the evidence. Here are common statements you encounter:

1 Males are an inferior version of the female. The basic template of life is female. The male is nothing but a biological mutation. This is argued in two ways. Firstly they focus on the XX chromosome of the female compared to the Xy of the male. Secondly all embryos are 'female' for the first few months of life. Embryos only become male after sufficient exposure to testostorone. Practical examples cited to show the male operates from the female template is the presence of irrelevant nipples in men and the penis being designed expressly to pleasure female anatomy. The 'inferiority' of the Xy chromosome is why women are less subject to disease.

As if the poor old Xy gene was not having a bad enough time of it its been recently discovered it is probably dying out. Like a poor photocopy its ability to be reproduce itself is gradually declining. It was recently suggested that it would die out as soon 125,00 years from now. However, latest research indicates it has about 10 million years to go and its possible it could mutate to avoid its extinction before then.

2 Women are more central to life than men. As the wellspring of life women are naturally more valuable than males. Hence in wars men were always more expendable while females were more valuable to ensure continuation of society. The male role in reproduction is fairly peripheral. I suppose with a culture where arfificial insemination and absent fathers is increasingly common these views may gain ground.

Women do live longer than men and it is often argued by FS that once men have fulfiilled their reproductive duties they are more expendable by natural design.

Research has also demonstrated women are generally superior to men in terms of sensory sensitivity in hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Scientific research now suggests it may be possible to have reproduction without men at all. Egg to egg transfer has allowed the creation of sperm without a male involvment. This has already occured in research with mice so its not science fiction any more. Its likely this will be possible in just a few years. If this occurs female supremacists will argue even more strongly that men are peripheral and this will be used to justify downgrading their social status.

The feminization of the environment through pollution of female hormones has been lowering male sperm rates for decades. This may require more medical assistance to ensure normal fertility in future unless this tend is halted.

3 Arguments based on 'Brainsex' theories are often used by female supremacists. Research does indicate women have naturally more empathy and 'emotional intelligence'. They also seem to be better at multi-tasking than men. This is cited as a major reason why women are now succeeding more as the culture is shifting from the old competitive model to a co-operative female friendly one. Male stoicism and emotional reserve which was once presented as strength in the past is now seen as a weakness. Many feminists present men as 'emotionally retarded' while one writer on gender and the brain compared the male brain to a mild version of autism. Thus maleness is beginning to be seen as an inferior pathology.

4 Brainsex theory and lots of psychological experiments show women on average have better language and communication skills. Women also appear to have better long term memories from research carried out.

5 Men's excessive sexual desire for women is often presented by FS as a 'weakness' that makes them relatively easy to manipulate. Women are the focus which men seek. Some of the more extreme FS thinkers present men as semi-human because of this.

Another popular argument used by female supremacists is based on the differing social behaviour of the genders.

6 Men are more violent and socially disruptive than men. Statistics are often quoted on rape, domestic abuse, sexual abuse and murder to demonstrate men are more aggressive and criminal. The vast majority of prison population across the world are men. The logic being women are more suitable to run a more peaceful harmonious society.

7 Many FS hold to a historical theory that suggests society was inherently matriarchal before a patriarchal take around 5,000 years ago. These matriarchal societies are seen as a 'golden age' or Utopia according to supporters of this theory. The patron Saint of this view of late Neolithic history was the Lithuanian archaeologist Marija Gimbutas. According to Gimbutas these near utopian matriarchal societes were destroyed in a brutal male take over which introduced an oppressive patriarchy that has reigned ever since.

8 FS often argue women are more in touch with the divine or spiritual than the more base or animal like male gender. Goddess based spirituality is frequently used to justify such ideas. Lots of Pro-Doms have tapped into this notion. Women's higher involvement in religious activity across the world is cited as evidence of their greater spiritual awareness.

Based on all these 'facts' and a few others female supremacists make the argument that society should be based exclusively on female led relationships, employment and political decision making. It is conceded men have greater physical strength. However, this is presented as simply evidence that males exist to 'protect and serve' women. The analogy is sometimes made to beasts of burden that are physically stronger than humans but are perceived as inferior. Similarly it is suggested males strength makes then more suitable for more menial less intellectually or socially taxing tasks in society.

I think thats a fair summary of some of the main arguments you may confront. There are lots of arguments to challenge these points. There is also lots of evidence the FS conveniently ignore.

In short I see it as Femifascism. Like the Fascists these people seek to argue one group in human society are superior and inherently more valuable than another group. Such attidues to black people brought us colonial slavery and in regards the Nazis it was the main justification for death camps. Supremacist ideas take us down a very slippery slope. When time allows I hope to come back and put the counter arguments.

Edited 4 Feb 10, 10:17 PM by Goddess_Magic

Great first post - looking forward to reading any subsequent ones.

'A woman, without her man, is nothing.
A woman: without her, man is nothing'

Indeed!

"I can't wait to taste your face".

Can you give us a coulpe of names of female supremacist writers in case people want to follow the subject up?

In general, or do you think that it's specifically an issue in particular areas? (Academia, say).

That's on the increase, I concur. I'd query whether that's because of a genuine belief in female supremacy by editors, owners and publishers though. If that was the case, surely they'd be pushing for female domination of the media? That doesn't seem to be happening.

Far more likely, I think, is that what we're actually talking about is a media fad. Motivated, as are all media fads, by the profit motive. The media constantly needs to reinvent itself as 'edgy', particularly "new media".

A good example of what I'm talking about would be the rightly maligned "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t-shirts. They weren't created by a female supremacist. They were created by a businessman looking to tap into the teenage girl market.

Arguably, this is related to the Situationist concept of recuperation. By selling back originally radical ideas to us, under the guise of "girl power", the Spectacle deradicalises them.

I think in some instances that is the case. However, a complication arises here. I'm not saying you're doing this, but in many discussions of radical feminists, their beliefs and arguments are heavily distorted in the popular perception. Dworkin is a good example of this. I have little time for her politics, but that doesn't alter the fact that she's one of the most misrepresented authors of the last century, to the extent of quotes attributed to her (like "penetrative sex is rape") never actually having been stated by her.

Be more specific please. How are you defining "disadvantage"? What specific areas do you believe young men are disadvantaged in and what effects is that having?

While hypocritical, I don't think that can be argued to be oppression, in the structural sense of the term.

Lets be devils advocate though. What are the key female supremacist arguments you are likely to confront?

I wouldn't say that there are no female supremacists making those arguments. I would, however, argue that you are massively overepresenting their numbers and influence. I see no real indicator that this is a movement with any popular support or real power. I don't currently see why they are any more significant as a group then the Otherkin. And I'm not worried about "dragon supremacists" either.

This is a semantic point, but it's one of my personal bugbears. What you describe there isn't fascism. Fascism is a specific ideological and political movement. While there are internal variations, it's not a synonym for "authoritarian" or "bigoted", despite that usage being widespread.

While it's not entirely impossible, I currently have not come across any female supremacist writings that are genuinely fascist in their nature. Bigoted? Yep. Absurdly biologically reductionist? Yep. Reactionary? Yep. But not fascist.

I'm off to see the Bootleg Beatles.
As the Bootleg Mark Chapman.

Well, quite. Otherwise it's just a whole load of garbage that you've cobbled together from all over the place that you imagine constitutes some manner of coherent thesis.

--- Ha!

'A woman, without her man, is nothing.
A woman: without her, man is nothing'

Calling something out as garbage because you'd like to have discussion based on something other than unsubstantiated nonsense is hardly chest beating.

note also: Ad hominem attacks don't "win" arguments either.

--- Ha!