From Gyno-Utopians to Gyno-Fascists
» Gender Follies , » Reference
I think women are swell but sadly don't think they are inherently better than men. It isn't that I'd mind if they were. I'd like to think there's a god who'll take me off to eternal bliss after I die I remain an atheist.
Here's a typical female supremacy enthusiast from a discussion of eight years ago:
BDSM and D/s aside, female supremacy is a logical evolutionary step for human beings because the female psyche is more suited to govern in a civilized society. I base this thesis on the fact that women, as a whole, are, amoung other things, more highly socialized, more empathic and have better communication skills as opposed to a majority of men who are more prone to aggressiveness and violence and are less inclined to compromise. These are, at least, my observations.
If you've studied evolution, you must certainly realize that it is a slow process (in terms of the human time frame). The seeds for female supremacy have been sown since the demise of patriarchal poligamy and a full political realization will probably not manifest itself for several hundred more years.
In today's world (at least in Western cultures), female supremacy is evidenced by the act of marriage (vows of exclusivity) and the nearly full feminine control of procreation. Cultures that still practice the more oppressive forms of patriarchy will easily crumble once women become politicized via the free flow of information. (Logic dictates that, within a culture, men will not take up arms against women and thus will be forced to compromise).
Gender roles in the future under feminine supremacy will probably be much more liberal and variable; codes of conduct certainly more civil. Other attributes and manifestations are, at this point, anyone's guess.
If you indeed aspire to "live the values of female supremacy", simply being a respectful gentleman should suffice in most situations.
To which Janet Hardy replied:
Leona Helmsley. Joan Crawford. Dorothea Fuentes. Winnie Mandela. Just to name a few.
Not to mention Patricia Dunn.
Long discussion: Female Supremacy and Supremacists
As with any belief system there's actually a broad spectrum from dewey-eyed female utopians to gynofascists.
And I don't let my own feelings stop me from enjoying discussions with female supremacists like Victoria Catherine of Gynosupremacy.
Comments
This is all so ridiculous it makes me laugh. Listen folks if the idea of “female supremacy” gets you wet (or hard) then I say enjoy it to the fullest. But don’t confuse your fantasy with reality.
And fantasy it is. The entire mode of arguement for it is to describe only the positives of the position they’re for (women having better communication skills and empathy, etc.) and describing only the negatives of the other side (men being more violent and so forth). If you use that mode you can ‘prove’ anything.
Using it I can easily prove that women shouldn’t be allowed to raise children, only men should. The majority (around 60%) of child abusers are women. This ‘must’ mean women are inherently geared to abuse children, so if we want children to be safe we should give them to men. Click here for the documentation.
Of course this completely ignores the fact that the majority of children’s caretakers are women so of course they have more oppurtunity to abuse. But why should I mention that, it would undermine my thesis.
If you accept the female supremacists arguements, than logical consistency demands that you accept white supremacists. They argue the same way. Any white supremacist can rattle you off a list of ‘facts’ proving blacks are more likely to be criminals, and the damage they’ve caused to society. Thier ‘facts’ will be technically accurate. The problem is, that like my ‘fact’ I used above, they don’t take into account the context. Nor do they want to admit the incredibly long list of positive things blacks have contributed.
Another flaw (yeah, I know it’s one long ass post, but I’m on a roll, and like any aggressive male I enjoy a good arguement) is that the female supremacists have confused inheritable traits, with the expression of those traits. They talk about how men are more violent than women, but violence itself is not the trait. It is the expression of the inherited trait of aggression. And yes men do tend to be more aggressive than women. The part they fail to understand is that this trait does not have to be expressed as violence. Every great accomplishment, every discovery, every cure for a disease, was ultimately an expression of this trait of aggression. Some who have this trait (and though men are more likely to have it, plenty of women have it as well) decide to express it as violence and killing. Others express it as a desire to change the world for the better. The trait itself is not good or bad, it’s how it’s expressed. Is it just me or is this an insanely long post.
To conclude, to make a legitimate arguement of something, you have to include all of the pertinent facts. Not just those that support you position.
Posted by: Brian | September 26, 2006 7:40 PM
Richard, when I saw this I immediately thought you were quoting W.A. Bond, a Gynosupremicist with a couple of books - poorly researched and not well-written. Bond was a few years after this Usenet thread, though. Can Femdom Save Our World? and Women to Rule Our World
Brian really nailed down the point, though. And if I may expand on it, there is a situational relevance that is often overlooked: If your tribe or village is being in danger of being attacked, then you’d probably want a few “aggressive” types around for safety and security.
The Edge of Vanilla
Posted by: Tom Allen | September 26, 2006 10:01 PM