undergroundsea
Posts: 2400
Joined: 6/27/2004
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: XYisInferior
Analytical / left-brained thought processes can digest FBI crime statistics well enough, can't they? Better yet, they may arrive upon hypothesis based upon those statistics.
Sure, cerebral reasoning can draw upon statistical data. However, a reference to statistical data does not by itself make for sound cerebral reasoning. The question remains about whether the reasoning presented follows logically from the statistical data, and whether adequate critical thinking has been applied in evaluating the statistical data.
Is there a specific statistic and corresponding cerebral reasoning you have in mind?
Without saying a cerebral argument for FS is impossible, I have not seen a compelling argument for it. I have seen attempts to make such arguments which have varied in their quality.
While your argument ranks in the better portion of such arguments, I am unconvinced. The scope of your review of information is narrow and slanted to favor your belief. For example, when you discuss differences in male and female brain, you focus on only those differences that suggest an advantage for the female brain. And you are drawing conclusions or making assertions that do not necessarily hold. For example:
quote:
It might be a cerebral exercise to consider which sex is naturally put in harm's way more and what reasons that may be from a biological point of view.
To accept your call to a cerebral exercise, from a biological perspective men might be put in harm's way because one man can impregnate multiple women, and the species can propagate even with that one man. However, that is not the reason or the only reason why men are more commonly put in harm's way, especially in today's society--one man does not assume responsibility for impregnating all women or many women to propagate the race, Marlon Brando excepted ;-) Remember, times are changing where women are also taking on roles to put self in harm's way to protect others, and men who put themselves in harm's way do so not only for women but also for children and elderly, including elderly men. It might be a cerebral exercise to consider this broader picture and what reasons might exist behind this observation.
quote:
It might be worth considering cerebrally if the rise of the Third Reich or the Rwandan genocide of the nineties would have even happened without the existence of male-oriented greed and aggression, which is all well documented, of course.
You imply that wars are a male-related phenomenon. If your theory is true, why have not states with female heads of states, whether secular or monarch, remained free of war? You might argue that they had to play the game. Are they playing the game of men, or are they playing the game of politics and power? Let's not go so far away. Let us look at our recent campaign for the Democratic nomination. When feeling at risk for not winning, did Clinton behave any differently than male politicians who seek a position of power? Was her behavior determined by her sex, or was it determined by the situation? The point I convey is that it is all to easy to describe as male behavior that that is human behavior done for sake of power by men who were seeking power.
Indeed statistically violence is committed more by men. I don't think it is clear to either of us how much of the violence you describe is caused by biology, how much by culture, and how much by the desire to seek power and the corruption that power brings.
To observe the effect of culture, one can look at non-violent cultures that do not glorify physical strength and violence (some tribal cultures present such an example) as our culture and many other cultures do, and one can compare behavior and tendency towards violence within men across different subcultures and women across the same subcultures (a small private school where violence is infrequent versus a large public school where one grows up around violence). Why do men in the South have a greater tendency to respond to an insult with violence than men in the North?
To understand the effect of power, and corruption that power brings, one can look at situations when humans, men and women, abuse power when they can get away with it.
Human behavior is complex and there are multiple variables that produce violence. While the roots of behavior and the causes of violent behavior are still under study, indeed research and empirical data shows a greater tendency for physical aggression by men. Amongst reasons men are more likely to use physical force is that they are more likely to think they can do so. What happens in a situation where a woman has greater physical force, or knows she can use physical force without any response? Ask Tiger Woods ;-) What if we bring unchecked psychological or emotional power into the picture?
Even if the degree of violence attributed to being male is overstated due to the reasons I give above, I agree that there is a biological component and equalizing all variables will show a comparatively greater tendency for violence in men. How does this point fit in your equation for superiority? As you speak of wars caused by men, how do you account for improvements to life brought by men? Is your analysis balanced?
quote:
Socially and domestically, Women's access to credit, real estate and improved decision making power in the household is linked with reduced poverty and greater productivity in the world. This may arguably be an example of the virtue of sexual equality and nothing more, but I suspect the social contribution Women have made and can further make is more positive than we may give credit.
The point you make also applies to ethnic minorities. Of course if more members of society begin to move forward, so will society as a whole. Indeed women and ethnic minorities have contributed to society in many ways. What point do you try to make towards superiority by saying women have also contributed to society?
quote:
The submissive male is certainly recognized and honed under Female Supremacy; his contribution is intimately understood and harnessed.
First, FS spans multiple forms, of which some give a more diminutive role to the man--they are considered good only for labor. Recognize that comments you will see directed at FS similarly span different forms of FS.
I see a relationship where one of greater authority seeks input from others to represent good leadership, good relationship, and good communication, which occurs across all types of dynamics. As to which relationships are most likely to have this synergy, synergy occurs from the union of different thoughts and strengths. Equalizing other variables, there is greater room for synergy in egalitarian relationships because relationship dynamics cannot obstruct the flow of thoughts as they have potential to do in a relationship that does have a power imbalance. Because the role or authority cannot be used to end a disagreement as could be the case in D/s relationships with such a dynamic, compromise is a greater necessity in egalitarian relationships.
quote:
First, you make the mistake of assuming all Female Supremacists are trying to convince the world their way is better. Why this assumption? If our reasoning doesn't jive with you, why such a need to give it so much attention rather than ignore it? Consider the nature of this very thread; it was not a declaration, but rather an expression of feelings. What "camp", if you will, seemed more derisive / absolute: the advocates of Female Supremacy or those antithetical to it?
First, you make the mistake of assuming I say all FS folks are trying to convince the world their way is better. Why this assumption?
I direct my comments at those who try to make a cerebral case for FS, which goes anywhere from simply an attempt at saying that female superiority is a truth to proposing that society in general should be based on a higher social status for female citizens. Many who speak of FS also explicitly or implicitly imply female superiority. Even if these points were not controversial, it is fair to expect discussion or debate in a discussion forum.
Tell me, what if someone came and posted that one race is superior than others. What type of response would you expect from people who intellectually disagree, or who are offended by the statement?
How is the concept of female superiority different in principle than the concept of racial superiority?
If you say that you consider yourself inferior to women for sake of your personal attributes, I have no issue. When you say all men are inferior, you are dragging me into your boat and projecting that claim about inferiority onto me, which is uninvited. So your argument that those who comment against FS should not do so does not hold because (1) it is likely to conflict with one's intellectual or ethical beliefs, much like concepts of racial superiority, and (2) it is not a question of letting someone do that that does not affect others because it does indeed affect others by suggesting everyone, not just those who wish to practice FS (whether for psychosexual reasons or more), falls under the paradigm. If you say that it is only a matter of words and because one in FS says it does not make it, the same applies for the opposing comments (that they are only words).
quote:
Female Supremacy is a confluence of both sexual and intellectual processes (at least as I see it)—it is rooted in the male / Female dynamic and inherently about male / Female comparison.
You may see it that way but there are people whose sexual and intellectual processes disagree with what you propose. It is for you to examine whether your thoughts come from a psychosexual place only, or do they also have cerebral roots. If they have cerebral roots then you are, of course, welcome and able to present your cerebral reasoning. However, simply because you present it does not make it correct cerebral reasoning and it is reasonable for those who reason differently to say so.
If your cerebral reasoning is sound, you should be able to move forward your argument and address issues with the counterarguments.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: undergroundsea
If we are relying upon statistical evidence, there are more of each, men and women, who do not have such a belief.
I will of course have to ask for cerebrally-oriented data to prove this fact beyond the shadow of a question. For instance, what statistical evidence are you ready to provide to prove that statement is absolutely true?
I am unimpressed by this counterargument. I do not intend to conduct a survey; however, I will present the basis of my statement.
To review, you claimed that because there are however many men who wish to worship women, there must be a reality or a force that compels it. In short, you attempt to say that because these men worship women, it must be that women are superior. There are that many people or more who worship fire and various alternative Gods. There is a large number of college students who will bow towards a beer brewery. Does that mean that all of these objects of worship must also a be a superior force because of the believers alone?
I countered by saying that if you are pointing to empirical numbers and saying these numbers reflect a reality, there are greater numbers that go against the reality you propose. The concept to worship women is found in smaller, fringe populations: female dominance, some forms of alternative religion, etc.
The largest ratio I have seen for the percentage of people who enjoy BDSM is 25%. Of this 25%, only a portion are into Fm. Of this portion, only a portion practice a belief or dynamic that is based on female superiority and/or (you are welcome to pick the combination that gives you the greatest number) include a spiritual or religion-like worship in their dynamic. Thus, we are discussing a small subset of the population. If what you propose is simply a fact of nature, why have not more people been drawn to your belief, and what of the beliefs held by portions of population greater than those who believe in FS?
Lastly, your words that I repeat below are inconsistent with your arbitrary claims to greater synergy in FS relationships.
quote:
I will of course have to ask for cerebrally-oriented data to prove this fact beyond the shadow of a question. For instance, what statistical evidence are you ready to provide to prove that statement is absolutely true?
quote:
This only serves to underscore an important point about discussions of genetic superiority. It's best to ask what kind of superiority we are discussing.
This point only serves to underscore an important point about discussions of superiority. It's best to ask what makes for superiority.
The point I convey is that there are some who make such weak arguments for FS that it seems they are grasping for straws. For example, one woman pointed to the mole vole as an example of female superiority. The mole vole is a creature that does not have a Y chromosome and differentiates between male and female sex via a mechanism different than the SRY gene. That there is a creature that reproduces sexually and determines sex in a different way does not make for a compelling argument for female superiority. Such attempts reinforce my belief that often the belief in FS comes from an emotional and psychosexual place, followed by attempts to justify this belief logically.
But let's forget the others and speak of those who are here to speak for themselves.
Do you recall if you have always thought women to be superior, or did you first think men and women to be equal but then through cerebral reasoning come to think women are superior? If so, what is that cerebral reasoning?
What is your metric for defining superiority?
Is your basis to worship and exalt women because you think they are superior to you? If so, do you agree that there might be some men who are superior to you with respect to whatever metric or almost all metrics you use to establish superiority? If your want to worship comes from a place of acknowledging superiority, do you feel a similar want to worship such men?
Cheers,
Sea
|
RE: female Supremecy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread