quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub

As long as you don't try to prove that all females are superior to all males, I say go for it. I'd even like to join you sometime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

I find it quite ridiculous that a lot of people seem to think superiority has to do with your gender and not your brain, the funniest things are usually the websites of some female supremacists with really horrendous spelling and grammar, but hey maybe they are so superior that they can make their own rules ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsDonnaMia


Well, it doesn't take too much common sense if you look around! Men are always chasing after us.
Not to say women don't go after guys.. but you can't deny men are usually the ones who chase, buy gifts, spend money on us and so on much more.

As far as the men being the secondary sex and stuff..there's a primitive way of looking at it: when a lion attacks the village its the men who risk and sacrifice themselves to defend us. We are the half of the species who carries and bears the child, and we need protecting. This is instinctual in men and a clue in nature about which sex is more disposable. They do a lot of the hard, laborous work in society, too. That's why men are so yummily strong.

ya don't need science to spell it out in black and white for you to conclude all that.

I gotta ask...how do masculine identified females fit into this narrow world view for you? Women protect women all the time...women put themselves in bad situations to protect one another all the time. And women often have no problem standing up from themselves without that guy who's sitting in the corner picking his nose. It baffles me that you think any form of life is disposable. In fact because females last long in the womb there are more women to men in ratio. And yet, you seem to think that men aren't needed? I'd like to see how well you do that reproduction thing on your own since you've "sent" all the men off to slaughter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

This is a male fantasy, folks. Further, it is a fantasy that can only exist in a male-dominated society! Haven't you ever noticed that the men depicted in these websites are COMPLETELY not fantasy material for any woman--but especially not the women depicted in the photos? Or do we honestly believe that gorgeous, fit, leather-clad goddesses in their early 20's to mid 30's are just naturally DRIPPING, of their own volition, to dominate some paunchy, balding, doughy white middle-class worm in his late 40's to mid-60's for kicks and to feel "powerful"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

What I find amusing is the assumption that Female Supremacy websites are actually designed and built BY or FOR actual women.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

This is a male fantasy, folks. Further, it is a fantasy that can only exist in a male-dominated society! Haven't you ever noticed that the men depicted in these websites are COMPLETELY not fantasy material for any woman--but especially not the women depicted in the photos? Or do we honestly believe that gorgeous, fit, leather-clad goddesses in their early 20's to mid 30's are just naturally DRIPPING, of their own volition, to dominate some paunchy, balding, doughy white middle-class worm in his late 40's to mid-60's for kicks and to feel "powerful"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
Not bloody likely. When women are in charge, they tend to pick men very much the way powerful men do: youth, strength, beauty, and talent are the features they look for.

quote:



Really? Well you know, dominating a member of a boy band was never an idea that turned me on, brain however does, and I don't care too much how it is packaged, youth was never a deciding factor, I prefer life-experience and a brain, that is strength to me, more strength than a gym steeled body.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
Quite honestly, the most offensive and obnoxious aspect of "Female Supremacy" websites and rhetoric is not the idea of female power, but the idea that this puerile sexist fantasy has ANYTHING to do with real female power in the real world--politically, socially, physically, or sexually. If people are really serious about female-dominated societies, they need to educate themselves FAR more about what a real female-dominated culture looks like, and how the people in them actually live on a daily basis.

You wouldn't care to give one example of a "real female-dominated culture" and what it looks like? Preferably one in the 1st or 2nd world, because I don't think some obscure tribe quite compares with the way we live now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
Matriarchy in the real world is NOT just a twisted, hateful mirror image of patriarchal fascism: female domination over a whole society creates an entirely different form of civilization. Take a good look at Minoan civilization of Antiquity, the Khasi of India and Bangladesh, the Mosuo of China, the Choctaw of North America, or countless other examples where matriarchy and matrilineality have been practiced, both in modern times and in the ancient world. When women rule a society they do not tend to create crushing hierarchies of poverty, pain, disease and death.

In modern times? I don't think they are really living a modern way of life.

Now women have ruled societies, but I wouldn't say that everybody was better off and there was less poverty, pain, disease and death under Margaret Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth I

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
If you need any real proof of female "superiority", the only real evidence of any value is this: through the accidents of human biology, a society in which women are equal or superior to men seems to create better and more egalitarian living conditions for ALL PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN IT, male and female, than a society of analogous complexity which happens to be ruled by men.

Again, please give an example, I like history but so far I have to find an example of a society where women are equal or superior, and especially how it creates better conditions, unless of course you are talking StarTrek here....

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
This is true in every case I have studied to date, and I have yet to find an exception to the rule. It seems to be a function of population growth and control. When women have value as human beings, rather than merely as units of production and as property, they naturally give birth to fewer children and invest more resources in the children they do have. Fewer people = more resources to go around. More resources per person = less competition. Less competition = less aggression, less hierarchy, less war, and less intra-cultural violence.

Sounds good, but I would like to see some evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

In a patriarchal society, where women are essentially nothing more than a form of livestock, women are forced to breed until they die (maternal mortality is a risk in every pregnancy), and then replaced the way one would replace an ox who had grown too old to pull the plow. These societies produce a great over-abundance of population and tend to expand exponentially. More people = less resources to go around = more competition = more hierarchy, violence, war, poverty, etc.. It's simply a function of the strain that human populations create on their resource base.

That might have been true in the middle ages or in 3rd world countries, I would say our society is still pretty much patriarchal but where are women forced to breed until they die? Contraceptives are quite easily available and most developed countries actually are actually experiencing quite the opposite, the numbers of the population are dwindling. Now have most European countries and the US turned into matriarchies and I just haven't noticed???

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama

The physical differences between men and women are very slight, in biological terms. Stature is a few centimeters higher on average in men, just as skin tone is a few shades darker. We can call men "stronger", I suppose, but we must recognize that this is a culturally created dichotomy. Physical strength and muscle mass are built by cultural practices--the female body has the same potential for strength and speed as the male body does, if it is trained from childhood to perform in those arenas. The Spartan civilization proved this over 2000 years ago, and it is just as true today as it was then.

Actually Sparta was one of the few city states in ancient Greece that allowed women to do sports and actively encouraged them, but it certainly didn't prove that women have the same potential for strength and speed as men. We are biologically different but that doesn't make men better or women better, it just makes us different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
Females do have slightly greater resistance to pain, disease, and privation than males do, physically speaking; this division is so strong in some culture groups that Maya women have been known to give birth to healthy infants and successfully nurse them under conditions which are killing their men with starvation. I suspect this is the main reason that women often feed their husbands and sons before they feed themselves, in many cultures around the world--it's not just because men are "superior" or "ruling the household", it is because men are physically more vulnerable to nutritional stress, and the women take steps to protect them.

If you look at evolution, men traditionally hunted and women gathered more, so through thousands of years and survival of the fittest those traits were passed on, also giving birth requires the female body to endure more, again, it makes us different but not better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
In much the same way, men tend to place themselves in harm's way in many societies because they know that they are more expendable than women are, in terms of the survival of the family and community. For the first two years of life, an infant under normal conditions will die if deprived of its mother: it has a higher chance of survival if the father dies, although the highest chance of survival is enjoyed by the infant which receives full parental and community investment from an extended family.

That is the case with most mammals, take the mother away while still suckling and the chances are that the offspring dies, it's nature but how does that make a female of any species superior? It simply makes her better equipped to fulfill the role nature intended for her, carrying on the species, but without a man to impregnate her, fat chance of that!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
These cultural practices can be couched in all sorts of social and political terms, but I am trying to point out that SOME of the realities behind them are realities of the human body. The slight differences between male and female bodies can motivate a great deal of human behavior, even down to food-gathering behavior. For example, in the majority of human cultures, men have a greater tendency to hunt and women have a greater tendency to gather--this is often assumed to be motivated by the desire to shield women from high-risk activities, but in practical terms gathering is often equally dangerous in terms of exposure to hostile predators and other hostile human groups. I suspect the real reason women have a tendency to "gather" is because they need a far greater supply of micronutrients and folate found in fruits, roots, nuts and vegetables than men do, in order to develop a healthy reproductive system, give birth to healthy babies and nurse them.

So you are saying gathering is just as dangerous as hunting down a brontosaurus? You know if you give me the choice of gathering food or challenging a bull on a field with a primitive weapon, I know which activity I would find significantly less dangerous...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
By contrast, men probably have a tendency to hunt because their daily protein needs are far higher than those of women, and this is especially true during their developmental years from 12-25, when their grams of protein necessary for healthy development are 200% greater than those of their female counterparts.

I think men hunted because it was a higher risk activity, now if men die it is not that essential for the species, in fact most male animals are brighter and less well camouflaged than the females. Also 1 male can father almost simultaneously children with lots of women, whereas when the woman is pregnant it will take her over 9 months to get pregnant again, a guy can impregnate one woman and then move on to the next. A male can father countless children, a woman is a lot more limited as to the number of children she can have, so a male in terms of nature is easier to replace. If you look at a pride of lions, one lion fathers all the cubs of one pride, the females do all the hunting but the male still dominates the pride...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
What has all this got to do with sexist fantasies of gender superiority? Absolutely fuck all. That's always the case with real science. Physical realities have very little to do with culture biases and the emotional needs of individual kink-meisters.

If people want to play FS, they are welcome to it, it's their kink and while it might not be my kink, it's absolutely not my place to tell anybody that my kink is better or more valuable than theirs. I can assure you that there are quite a lot of women out there who are into FS, I'm not because I find the idea of superiority based on gender a bit ridiculous but if people get off on it, more power to them and as long as they don't try to force it down my throat, I have the same view on it as I have on religion: Each and everybody's private affair, as long as nobody tries to "reform" me, I couldn't care less!


_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to ShaktiSama)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

So all the women I met who are into FS are actually men?

quote:

Oh wow, so whenever I played with somebody who wasn't your ideal, automatically I didn't have fun?

quote:

You wouldn't care to give one example of a "real female-dominated culture" and what it looks like? Preferably one in the 1st or 2nd world, because I don't think some obscure tribe quite compares with the way we live now.

quote:

Now women have ruled societies, but I wouldn't say that everybody was better off and there was less poverty, pain, disease and death under Margaret Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth I

quote:

Again, please give an example, I like history but so far I have to find an example of a society where women are equal or superior, and especially how it creates better conditions, unless of course you are talking StarTrek here....

quote:

That might have been true in the middle ages or in 3rd world countries, I would say our society is still pretty much patriarchal but where are women forced to breed until they die?

quote:

Now have most European countries and the US turned into matriarchies and I just haven't noticed???

quote:

So you are saying gathering is just as dangerous as hunting down a brontosaurus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsDonnaMia

last time I checked, we weren't talking about the transgendered crowd, we're talking about typical female and male behavior, right? At least I was. I also never said men weren't needed. Of course they are! I LOVE men! They are useful for a lot of things, of course. And... send them to the slaughter house? Boy, talk about taking something and running with it, lol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aidan

Wow, Constanze, I can't begin to address everything in your post (especially the self-contradictory stuff. Female Supremacy fantasies are good? Bad? Wha?) but I will cover your disregard for Shakti's examples of matriarchal cultures and subsequent demand for more.

Fact is, she gave you perfectly good examples that you threw out on cultural bias. Simply because they're not "first world", "tribal" or "ancient" does not make them germane to the the conversation, a facet of which is the question "what would/does a female dominated culture look like?" Just because these groups did not or do not have our technological sophistication or governmental model does not disbar them from comparison.

You say you want their not living a "modern way of life." Perhaps not. What the actual phrasing said was they are in "modern times", i.e. contemporary, i.e. existing right now. The first group mentioned as not being in antiquity, the Khasi, have a current estimated population of 1,361,100.

Why are there no examples given from the "first world"? Because those nations are almost all part of a large quasi-monoculture and have shared roots in ancient mediterranean, and later European, societies. They're all roughly the same when it comes to gender politics, that is to say, they are patriarchal. We are a patriarchal culture, and we are the First World.

Just because you do not like the examples given does not make them factually inaccurate or rationally invalid.

And this to say nothing of the other rampant scientific inaccuracies that your post is riddled with. Brontosaurus hunting? Really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavekal

In all honesty, men are superior in some ways, and women are superior in others.  But when it comes to one on one, any woman who chooses to embrace her femininity can wrap a man around her little finger.  We boys can't do that to the ladies.

quote:

ShaktiSama wrote: I've already explained how the patriarchal cultures of the so-called "first world" have come to dominate the globe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

Wow are you having PMS, have I touched a nerve or are you always so catty?

quote:

As to the women who have FS websites...

quote:

ORIGINAL: beeble

quote:

ShaktiSama wrote: I've already explained how the patriarchal cultures of the so-called "first world" have come to dominate the globe.

By the way, the phrase `first world' is largely meaningless since the fall of the Soviet Union.  The first world was the US and its allies (Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand); the second world was the Soviet Bloc, China, North Korea and Vietnam; the third world was everyone else.  The second world was just as patriarchal as the first world and, frankly, most of the third world, too.

beeble.