Now we all know how modern western culture celebrates women and femininity as superior and more precious than men and masculinity. That is not news to anyone older than four. I’ve written before that I think this is one of the reasons for men becoming more feminine and it's a way of adapting and actually I love them for it.
Female supremacy is the notion that women are superior to men and that they should be the “ruling gender” so to speak and that men should take some kind of second place and answer to them. If a society is built with this as a core value, we might call it a matriarchy. In this article I want to analyze this belief, look into why it is such a common ideology and finish up on why particularly cross dressers tend to follow it. I was inspired to write this article after receiving yet another email form a kind fan with the opinion that women have superiority over men and if they were in charge, everything would be better.
First let me clarify a few things in advance: Being superior or not, doesn’t necessarily say anything about leadership or authority. If you have a leadership position, that doesn’t make you more superior, it makes you more responsible (that’s the buzz word of leadership). I also think that anyone who really is that capable and virtuous should be granted the status they deserve. Call that a meritocracy if you want and it's something that I firmly believe in and it has absolutely nothing to do with gender.
The Origins of Female Supremacy
complex phenomenon that I can give you a straight and simple answer for. There
is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it all relies on the fact that it is a
woman who gives us life in a direct sense. Our mothers also play a much bigger
role in shaping our personality than our fathers. Why? Because most of our
personality is formed in the first few years of our lives and with whom do we
have closest contact in that period? Yep, you guessed it: our mothers. Camille
Paglia even thinks that, because of procreation, women are actually destined to
rule over men. Whether she’s right about that destiny or not is another
question but she certainly is right about why it might happen. But do not mistake authority with superiority. Just because women have that
natural power and our society might one day be a matriarchy, that does not make them generally superior. It also doesn't mean that such a matriarchal society is preferable to a democracy.
There is more to it of course. The belief in female superiority has two sides to it: male and female:
- Women with this belief can be
placed firmly in the category of fanatic radical feminists. Usually they
not only want women to rule the world but also to reduce the male population
to a minimum or even remove it entirely or establish a kind of fanatical matriarchy. We call them the man haters, the misandrists. They'll argue that matriarchies would be more peaceful and fair to all their members. Fortunately
they constitute a small minority of women and will never get their way and if
somehow they do, then they’ll change their minds very quickly. With some women there might be a belief in female superiority that does not have a negative premise but you won't find many of these either.
- Men, surprisingly, turn out to be the main supporters of female superiority. That requires a little explanation. You need to understand that men are very much driven by their instinctual attraction to women and, if they’re somehow influenced in their early development, that attraction can manifest itself in very unusual ways. This female supremacy is one of them. We'll go into detail on this further on.
Why Men want Female Supremacy
not all men want this, not even 10% but it’s still a lot who do. With many of
them it's just a fantasy that they get excited by. But even if it's not, there
are many who really think a matriarchal world where men are subservient to women is
desirable. You need only look at some of the many websites dedicated to the
topic. They’ll even justify it with all kinds of pseudo scientific arguments
and some will even find religious justifications for it. But nobody can really
deny that it’s actually about their own fantasy and the thought that it might
become real, makes it that much more exciting to them. Not surprisingly, with some people it's just an opportunity to make a quick buck and capitalize on that male fantasy. We can find plenty of examples of them too.
In ancient Greece, it was the male body that was
glorified as the ideal of aesthetic beauty (I certainly see why^^). Today it is
the female body. Men in particular glorify everything feminine and raise it on
a pedestal and often worship women from beneath. Many modern men consider women to be something better, purer, more beautiful and good spirited than
themselves and other men. This female glorification is surely a driving
factor in men’s desire to submit. Boys often get taught about female
superiority from an early age and that means that it’ll stick with them
subconsciously for the rest of their lives (we'll look into this later). It is like an
indoctrination really because it has no basis in reality. I wrote a lot about this in Female Worship.
I believe this is probably the single most important factor that enabled the feminist movement to gain so much influence. That of course contradicts their ramblings about a patriarchy, because if there really was a patriarchy, then it wouldn’t have been overthrown so easily. In reality, women have a lot of power over men and their decision making and they’ve had it long before the 70’s. In a sense, one could make the case that female supremacy is already on top of us and we just don’t know it yet.
We should be concerned
Let me get this straight. If a man wants to submit to a superior woman, worship her and take on the submissive role, I would never deny anyone that. As long as nobody suffers, this is ok. In fact it’s more than ok. It’s beautiful – especially if a couple love and respect one another, then this power play is a great way to get emotionally closer and grow together on a deeper level. I can so testify for that! But I really think it needs to stay within reason. The thought of living such an alternative lifestyle 24/7 is just out of question for me and probably for most people – male and female.
What worries me though is when people project their private lifestyle choices onto public life and even politics. They demand that a matriarchal supremacist lifestyle for everyone and justify why it's the “only true way to live” and that it's “what mother nature intended”. Incidentally, you'll also find people that advocate the exact opposite (i.e. that men should take the lead) and make the same errors in trying to impose it on everyone and they also say that "mother nature intended it". I think they all paint a much prettier picture of it than it really is. If female supremacy actually did replace democracy, then it would be anything but desirable. None of those benefits that I mentioned above that a couple can get from it would translate to the large scale in society. It just wouldn’t work that way. On the other hand, with that concept you'd have all the ingredients for a regime that suppresses one part of its population. Not good!
So please, dear followers of any kind of gender based hierarchy, by all means live that way in your own private life with your spouses and friends but do not try to make it a political movement.
Female Superiority as a Popular Belief
The idea that women are better than men is so common now days that we hardly even notice it when we hear it expressed. A little while ago US President Obama said publicly that “women can do anything that the boys can do, and do it better…”. That is just one example. The media, politics, and education all have this semi-conscious premise that women are superior to men. They love it. The men seem to love it as much as the women and it’s not healthy at all. And it’s been going on for at least 30 years now.
Firstly, it usually isn’t true. If women were averagely more capable than men, then that difference would be so small that the difference between various women among each other or men among each other is far greater. So it says nothing about our personal capabilities. It’s like saying people with freckles have a higher IQ on average. Well they might but it’s probably just a coincidence.
However, there are areas were women seem to outperform men and other areas where men often do better such that it can’t be just a coincidence. Physical performance aside, I think that this is entirely or mostly due to their different upbringing and not some natural superiority. But even if it was, there are so many exceptions that you can’t make a political case for it without resorting to unfair generalizations.
There's a far more worrying side to this though and it is the main motivation behind this article:
An adult man might get irritated or bored or just dismiss the public assault on his gender. If he’s confident and established, then it shouldn’t bother him much. But this is entirely different for boys who grow up in all this bombardment with female superiority. Since the 80’s or even before that, boys have been born right into the battlefield of a gender assault and they’re the real victims. In this decade, for the first time, we’re seeing a generation of young adult men who grew up in this and the consequences of this mass hatred are only slowly beginning to emerge.
Is it any wonder why so many men have become more feminine? This is the reaction of a boy who grows up and has internalized the notion that femininity is desirable and masculinity is detestable. Don’t blame men for becoming feminine. They’re just trying to survive in a society that has been very hostile towards them from a young age. It’s a logical response to the ideology of female supremacy. Now, as I mentioned often before, I love feminine men and I love the fact that they exist but I do sympathize with their status in society. Not only have they been pressured into this role, but now also many will ridicule them for being “wimps” and tell them to “man up”. How sinister is that? Just imagine how betrayed these boys must feel by society. Well I can’t really, I just voice this from what I learned from talking to one of them.
This whole process self-perpetuates and makes things worse at an even faster rate every year. Boys are now under performing compared with girls at almost every level. The gap is increasing at an astounding rate. And the female supremacists use this as “evidence” to make their case. At the same time, it makes the boys even more insecure and makes them drop at a faster rate. I am certain that the under performance of boys is entirely due to the fact that they’re under a lot more emotional stress than girls but society refuses to change that and we’re given the old “boys will be boys” argument.
There is loads more to say about this but I’ll have to keep the article at a readable length.
Crossdressers and Female Supremacy
I know from experience and a number of emails that cross dressers have a very strong tendency to worship the feminine. This is one of the motivations behind cross dressing. There’s nothing wrong with that of course and I think it can be a healthy way of expressing your desires or getting in touch with your feminine side not to mention a source of fun for any couple.
Many cross dressers take this further and reject everything masculine – in themselves as well as in others. This, of course, is not so good and I hope that people will try to work against it. My boyfriend has some of these tendencies and we’ve come to the conclusion that it is a result of indoctrination by the female supremacy movement. He told me he even went through a stage where he thought he was a woman trapped in a man’s body. But it was a delusion because he is as much a man as anyone. He was just taught by society to reject masculinity and simply responded by growing up with this little hang up.
I hope that you dear cross dressers out there can learn to accept your masculinity as something equally valuable, beautiful and precious as femininity. You should appreciate that the male body has an aesthetic beauty that is in no way less than the female beauty (more in my humble opinion…). Also, a toned male body can look absolutely stunning in feminine garments if you do it right. It’s like a gorgeous contrast between the two sides of humanity – the best of both worlds. It isn’t a coincidence that many fashion designers toy with the androgynous. Besides, if you were female, then cross dressing wouldn’t have its appeal because women already wear men’s clothes in every day life. It wouldn’t have the impact it has and consequently you’d have never discovered it as a way to have fun.
As usual feedback is appreciated!
Some related articles you might like:
Sanxuary on July 15, 2013:
I find the topic to be quite confusing. In all regards to science their are differences and still we attempt to force equality. We go as far as to claim that you can be any gender and being both is a strange new claim to superiority lately. We were never meant to be the same but one by becoming unselfish enough to find are strengths and weaknesses in one another to be strong together. Oddly as I search the work place equality is better achieved by equalizing environmental factors that allow anyone to get the job done. Demanding the same work on physical terms seldom creates equality regardless of gender. We are smart enough and have the technology to save everyone's back. Most puzzling is the demand for both rule books and not being allowed to play because your gender is not allowed to. Right now its in favor of women but one can never play with out changing the rules for the ones you allow to violate the rules in the first place. Now we are demanding that no rules exist and forcing people to comply with an empty book.
Doug on May 03, 2013:
Beer and lingerie at the same time is even better!
I think the main thing is that everyone is free to live as they please. There are about seven billion variants on gender roles out there.
Sanxuary on March 22, 2013:
All revolutions will eventually suffer from counter revolutions. Balance has to be attained at some point. I do not believe that most people are opposed to fairness and the general term of equality. No one is equal and no one will ever be equal and this side of the question suffers the most. Parenting rights, what is the equal standard for those weaker then others and what are the social norms in gender roles? Men have to play the part in most places but women are just as confused when they can not have both. You know flirt, lover, mother, and be a woman or just an employee. Then you wonder why guys are all about work and you our the lonely feminist sitting at home with your dog or cat two years from menopause. Men are changing, they are learning to run from being owned, they see marriage as a joke, and they are slowly growing tired of systems that are unfair. Most of all I am seeing that the environment is really the route to take in order to create so called equality. It actually flies in the face of so called ideas on equality. Its simple, you give everyone the right tools to lift heavy crap and it makes everyone capable of being so called equal. The current policy is that everyone who works for whomever can lift heavy crap. I know this to be the exception and not the norm and even if you our strong, you should not have to sacrifice your body. A new view on equality needs to be taken because the old view is not allowing the discussion to move in any positive ways. The question is what is equality and how can it be achieved. What works and what is not working. (were to afraid of offending people with the truth) Is it fair that men have the burden of a court system to have any parental rights. Why are they instantly excluded with out a lawyer? The one thing we are never excluded from is child support. We are already seeing a generation of men who have raised their children on their own with out a woman. I am one of them and yes I have had many times in which my employer was up set because I had to leave work and see my kid at the hospital. Do not assume that men have no idea what it is like to do everything a woman assumes she has to do. Even in a relationship it happens and guess what, someone has to do it.
Lucy83 (author) on March 19, 2013:
That's a strange article. First he points out a number of important issues. Then he just finishes up with the stereotypical cliche that men can sleep around and be thought of as a hero. I don't know if that was intended but it basically minimizes and even ridicules all those issues - especially given that most people don't look up to such men.
samowhamo on March 15, 2013:
Hey Lucy I found an article here I think you should read. Please let me know what you think I think this guy is kind of a jerk.
samowhamo on November 29, 2012:
One of the things about female supremacy that scares me is that it sounds like it could happen in my lifetime or close to my lifetime. Like what saharaeve has said on here hubpage that kind of scares me. I just dont want to be dominated and even if men were dominated they would eventually rebel. You cant dominate people forever sooner or later everyone fights back people can only be pushed so far.
samowhamo on November 21, 2012:
Well than I guess that makes me your opposite. I have had similar experiences but not with men with women. I have heard women say and do things that I too at first thought women would never even think of but I got a hard dose of the real world I have heard of women who have LIED ABOUT BEING RAPED. I dont think women are as oppressed as people say they are at least not in the west but I do agree that women are still pretty oppressed in other country's.
Lucy83 (author) on November 21, 2012:
"People have the choice as to whether or not they buy into the values of society"
Of course you have a choice.
"women are ...... paid less for the same work"
This is just not true. You need to inform yourself better before making statements like this.
"Go to Afghanistan and tell me "female superiority" has a role in describing their 'society'."
You don't get to use humanitarian problems in a remote region that you've probably never seen yourself as fuel to forward your ideological convictions here.
" If anything puts women on pedestals, it is men who behave disgracefully and who don't involve themselves in their children's upbringing: leaving it to the mother to do everything."
That sentence doesn't even make any sense.
"If a lady is superior (like the one I serve) it is down to who she is as a person not her gender"
Finally a good and true statement.
M on November 15, 2012:
The opinions expressed by those who claim to be female supremacists are exactly that: opinions. People have the choice as to whether or not they buy into the values of society which I don't see as being particularly pro women: quite the contrary. Globally, women are by and large oppressed. are paid less for the same work and find the 'glass ceiling' hampers their career progression and sexual assault is rife and often unreported simply because most women don't find the system actually works in their favor: even to assure equality. Go to Afghanistan and tell me "female superiority" has a role in describing their 'society'.
I grew up in a violent household: and that violence was not perpetrated by the lady of the house. If anything puts women on pedestals, it is men who behave disgracefully and who don't involve themselves in their children's upbringing: leaving it to the mother to do everything.
I have no doubt that you believe what you have written and that it is consistent with your experience of life. It's not consistent with mine. Feminism has not even reached large parts of the 'society' I live in. And I've not yet encountered, having worked with a large number of the generation just about coming to the age of legal responsibility, is a belief, however unfounded, in the natural superiority of women.
If a lady is superior (like the one I serve) it is down to who she is as a person not her gender: oddly enough, she would absolutely agree with me on this. :)
Sam on November 05, 2012:
It's just a good thing, and if that makes people paranoid that women will become supreme, then they're either sexist and don't want women to have any kind of power at all,
Well just because they fear female supremacy that does not neccessarily make them sexist or not want women to have power it could be that they fear that men might become oppressed or more discriminated. I am not against women having power but supremacy is too much perhaps you should read SCUM Manifesto there are things written in it that have scared the hell out of me. Wouldn't you feel that way if it were male supremacy.
D28 on October 17, 2012:
I am a 28 year old male and this article is accurate.
Sam on October 10, 2012:
Lucy83 11 months ago Hub Author
I don't mind people having these fantasies. I have them too but spreading this around as a sentiment for everyone to join in is causing a lot of harm to youngsters.
And the way women were socialized to play second fiddle never had the same kind of raw hatred as the way men/boys often get bashed. Nobody ever called for the extermination of women but men have and still are subjected to that idea. No matter how oppressed, there was always at least some value in being a woman. With men the label of worthlessness is very popular. We keep blaming men for sexism whilst subjecting them to the worst kind of sexism. Not a proud example of humanity.
And that Lucy is the main reason why I dont trust feminists because some call for the extermination of male humans and complete female supremacy. Extermination is extermination no matter how you do it wheather you do the way the Nazi's did it or wheather you do it slowly and painlessly like gradually breeding men out (although I dont know how they would do that unless of course they used parthenogenesis which some scientist have done reaserch on). And going for complete female supremacy by establishing lesbian utopia's or some other all female society and that is my main reason for not trusting feminists I think androcide and complete female supremacy is reason enough to be distrustfull.
Sam on September 14, 2012:
@ Dracula Delacroix
I read your comment and the part where you said Y chromosomes might be going extinct well that is kind of true and kind of not true. They have found recent evidence that both X and Y chromosomes in primates specifically humans (and humans are primates if you beleive in human evolution) are somehow becoming weaker and that in about 4 million years time primates will have developed a new way of determining gender. Look up Y chromosome on wikipedia if you dont beleive me.
Mike on August 15, 2012:
Charo, you just got with the wrong crowd of people. Of course you also have sexual feelings but all they are is temporary feelings. When you realize that you have gotten with a group of dishonest people and you have temporary feelings. Just don't take it seriously and just enjoy life!
Mike on August 14, 2012:
Feminists never cite obituaries as proof that women live longer because they are suspenseful and out of their control unlike government agencies which are politically controlled.
If obituaries weren't suspenseful and they showed females living longer, they would cite it because it would make their case that much stronger.
They then ask loaded questions as "Why do women live longer?" as though it is settled but it isn't because obitiautires don't show either sex prevailing. They show it back and forth.
Mike on August 14, 2012:
The female supremacist websites have moderation approval for comment sections which says alot about the website owners and the movement itself. Sahara Eve even edits what a person types ESP when they disagree.
charo8 on August 13, 2012:
I stumbled on this article and as a male this has bothered me my whole life. Feeling inferior to the other sex is a horrible feeling, knowing no matter what I accomplished I would still be below the lowest female. At least now I know it's probably due to having been brought up in such a male-hating time in history. It sickens me to read other men put themselves down so much, or women putting themselves on pedestals all the time. But the damage has already been done to me, I feel inferior and only recently began indulging in secretly cross-dressing to satisfy my inner desires. It's totally unfair, but we didn't have a choice what we were born into
Sam on August 03, 2012:
There's a feminist named Robin Morgan she speaks of equality and yet she once said misandry is the right oppressed and she even said something like kill your father not your mother. This woman has a son and I think use to be married what kind of example is she setting for her son. I think this is proof enough that feminism is not what feminists say it is.
Sam on August 02, 2012:
There are times when I would literally take a bullet to expose feminism. Feminists are definitley hiding and covering things up because there have been cases when for example there was this man who was talking about true stories of serious abuse that men have suffered at the hands of women and he got death threats for it. There was this woman who use to be a feminist but was banned from the movement because she wrote a book called prone to violence in which men suffer abuse at the hands of women herself her husband and children got deaths threats and there dog was killed and they were forced to leave the UK to protect themselves. Feminism has promoted the systematic discrimination of men all we ever here these days is men are jerks, rapists, oversexed, disgusting, egoist, immature, abusive, and violent well how do we know that even just half of the stuff they say about men is true how do we know it is not made up to discriminate men. Women are always calling and labeling men things like that just because of a few bad apples they got or from stories they have heard from other women or tv or the internet well how do there are that many jerks out there what if the only reason it seems like there are so many of them is because feminists and man haters pay more attention to them then men who genuinley are good. They always say that men are no good and that, that is true well just because someone says something is true that dosent make it true and just because someone says something is a lie that dosent make it a lie either anyone can say and think anything but in no way does that make it trure or a lie.
Sam on July 26, 2012:
Before I tell you this let me just say that I am not playing the pity card or anything I am just telling you my experience. Never assume that women are not capable of abuse because there are abusive women out there I know one unfortunately MY MOTHER. My mother is a drug addict she abused my father emotinally mentally and in some ways verbally. My father was falsely arrested twice because of false police reports my mother made I witnessed the second arrest. My youngest brother was strangled by my mother just because he took the family photo's out of the garbage my mother had thrown away. My brother called the police and they did nothing because my mother lied and he got written down as an unrulely teenager and my cousin scolded him for it HE DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG!!!. The house was so filthy it looked like it should be condemed and my mother never cooks for them anymore she says they are old enough to cook YEAH MAYBE THEY COULD IF THEY KNEW HOW so they have to fend for themselves for food. My mother is almost never at home anymore she is either at work or partying with her boyfriend who feeds her addiction. My mother lied to me and my brothers about all of this and despite all the evidence my father has for this no one would help us. My father got custody of me the easiest I was 19 at the time I am 20 now he was going to get custody of my youngest brother but the second arrest stoped him. I am not making this up (I say I am not making this up because a lot of people dont accept that women are capable of doing this because of feminist ideollogy) AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY REASONS WHY I HATE FEMINISTS MAN-HATERS AND FEMALE SUPREMACISTS THOSE PIGS MAKE ME SICK!!!.
Sam on July 26, 2012:
I dont beleive in superiority or inferiority but for those of you who beleive in female supremacy dont you think that if women did rule over men, men would eventually rebell. No one eants to be ruled over and female supremacists like all other supremacists will say do and think anything to justifie there supremacist beleifs they will be like this is true or that is a lie this is scientific evidence proving it or this is a myth or that is a myth but that still dosent make them right. EQUALITY FOR ALL
Niko56 on July 07, 2012:
I like meridions comment. I'm a man of equality. I'm also a man who judges an individual based solely on their character. It's a shame that I'm hard pressed to find others who think like this and choose supremacy over equality, acceptance, and character
Lucy83 (author) on June 19, 2012:
I'm glad to hear you found something that works for your sons. You're right, it's a very important topic and sadly it gets mentioned far too little. It's as if society only cares about girls. Shameful really.
Angie on June 17, 2012:
I have a daughter and two sons and I recognized this problem 20 years ago. I was very concerned with what would happen to my boys' masculinity and my daughter's femininity. I learned that the public school was controlled by a lot of women and they were trying to control the boys's behaviour by suppressing their natural instinct of impulse and staying still by giving them ritlin! Boys were alsways compared to how well behaved the girls were. I decided to send them to a private school. With time I saw that the energy to the school was the same towards boys and girls as the public school system. I sent my three children to a co-ed Academy....it was the best decision I made. Both my sons grew to be confident young men and my daughter grew to understand male energy. My husband showed all my children how to be industrious and I showed how to be warm and wise. Our job as parents has not finished and this will go on the second stage of their lives. It is constant awareness on our part as parents to know the changing society. I am concerned with the future of our children and the direction of our path. I am glad you mentioned this very importnat topic about our boys in this society.
Lucy83 (author) on May 29, 2012:
My misandry? Are you nuts? Have you even read anything I've written rather than just the titles and jumped to preformed conclusions?
And "justified mysogyn".
Seriously you are in the wrong place.
Darkproxy from Ohio on May 29, 2012:
Okay although I am countering your misandry with justified mysogyn.
Lucy83 (author) on May 29, 2012:
you haven't even seen the worst of it.
Lucy83 (author) on May 29, 2012:
Darkproxy there is no way I will tolerate such blatant misogyny on this thread. I've decided to approve this last comment as it puts your other comments into perspective (not to mention confirms Patrick's suspicion) but I won't put up with anymore hateful comments.
Darkproxy from Ohio on May 29, 2012:
No lucy I am pretty sure its close enough to this that I can use a broad brush. women get to walk arround half naked anywhere and everywhere as if trying to bait men into looking at them so they can scream victim of god only knows probably rape, if you read my own post on false rape you may see one down side of this psuedo supremacy
Patrick on May 23, 2012:
@Darkproxy I have always been a vocal opponent of female supremacy, as my comments on this article can attest. But what you just wrote is an overcorrection of the misandry displayed by female supremacists, and actually managed to swing the other way into misogyny.
Your broad sweeping generalizations show your hostility and bias towards women. Your claim that no women rise in the ranks on merit is as ridiculous as the female supremacist claim about the universal superiority of women's abilities. Much like the female supremacists, your extreme position shows nothing but your own lack of self esteem, causing your need to put down an entire gender by denying them any competence at all. Did you lose your job to a woman or something?
I don't see boys being thrown off of sports teams for excellence very often. More commonly, they receive college scholarships for their athletic achievements.
Darkproxy from Ohio on May 22, 2012:
I'm sure its not that one sided Lucy83, however do you honestly think things like this never happen? My example of this is my own so it may be biased. I had a coworker she was the worst person ever, violated dress codes at a police station, made at least three complaints a week and rarely did work. In Iraq women were kept out of action to such an extreme that it cost hundreds of man hours to maintain. There are no protests from feminists against such treatment since it is beneficial to women. Forgive my grammar errors, and taking things a bit over board.
Lucy83 (author) on May 22, 2012:
Darkproxy you raise some valid points but I don't think it's as simple and one-sided as that.
Darkproxy from Ohio on May 16, 2012:
This supemacy is a psuedo supremacy, women are employed and rise through ranks not on merits but threats of law suits. Women cry and go on Dr.Phil claiming the big bad sexists cost her, her job. Even though she never showed up for work on time and probably violated dress codes. As for the sports issue what a joke when ever a boy out performs the girls he is thrown off the team. When women rape men they get child support. There is no female supremacy in anything at all just alot of women getting hand outs and help from men.
Lucy83 (author) on May 02, 2012:
you REALLY need to open your eyes and see past this anti-male indoctrination. I realize it's hard to notice something that is everywhere but this is not helping you or anyone else. In fact it actively harms young boys in particular.
About your idea of female investors vs male investors, being cautions is not necessarily a positive trait. Caution or risk taking are good or bad depending on the situation. Sometimes better results come from being cautions, sometimes from taking risks. Better investors are those who know when to be cautious and when to take risks. Perhaps the reason men take more risks in general is because their circumstances require it.
Lucy83 (author) on May 02, 2012:
Omg, I love heels. Sure, they're uncomfortable but being taller is definitely a confidence boost not to mention the aesthetic improvement. Still I also often wear sneakers for practical reasons and I do like the greater freedom they give you.
Lucy83 (author) on May 02, 2012:
seriously? War is all you could come up with. When did this happen that everyone learned to associate masculinity with fighting before anything else? That's like saying femininity is only about crying.
Lucy83 (author) on May 02, 2012:
thanks for posting such a detailed comment. Makes lots of sense to me. I think we also often don't realize quite how different life was one or more centuries ago. So many other problems made the male provider / female nurturer arrangement simply the most practical. In today's age we have the luxury of choosing less practical lifestyles and then simply assume that society "chose" the stereotypical lifestyle only for cultural or religious reasons.
Rusty on April 25, 2012:
@Lucy and Taylor: I found your comments on the oppression of women interesting and informative. I have wondered myself if the idea of "oppression of women" really makes sense. It seems to me that most examples of oppression of women involve cherry picking. Examples of oppression of men based on sex are seldom cited. Some examples of oppression of men include forced military service (feudal obligation, conscription), forced seaman service (impressments), castration of boys to preserve high singing voices, and castration of boys to provide eunuchs for servants. Also, I would like to see an objective study on the "safety nets" society provides for women compared to those it provides for men. A proper understanding of gender oppression would require evaluating all the advantages and disadvantages of being female or male and not just focusing on one sex or a limited range of advantages or disadvantages. I hypothesize that society provides balances. Women as a group have not been allowed the freedoms men have enjoyed, but on the other hand, they seem to have been protected more. Men as a group have enjoyed more power, but on the other hand they have been expected to put themselves more at risk, e.g., military service (or servitude). To say the issue is "very complicated" is an understatement.
For the sake of argument, let us say that the idea of "oppression of women" does make sense. What then? Well, the idea of "oppression" seems to imply an oppressor. But who would the oppressor of women be? I suggest two plausible candidates -- society and men. Radical feminists charged men as being the oppressor. Certainly, this served their political ends (but not necessarily the truth). If women have been oppressed in practically all societies throughout history and men (and only men) are responsible, one must ask, "Why did men do it?" The only answer to "Why?" that makes sense is that men are innately very bad. I cannot accept this. Study after study shows that socialization is more important in forming a woman or man than is innate disposition (although I think the latter exists differently in the sexes). Neither women as a group nor men as a group are innately bad.
[Digression: if men, and only men, were innately bad but not women, then that seems like it would be a good case for a female supremacy because obviously men should be controlled for the good of society and the only members to do the controlling would be women. I think the logic here is valid but the argument unsound because the premise that men and only men are innately bad is false. I do not think the members of either sex are innately bad but that circumstances make some members of either sex bad and some good.]
Return from digression: If we were to say that men oppressed women (assuming this still for argument sake) not because they are innately bad but because of their socialization, then society becomes the responsible party. However, society consists of both women and men and so it would seem that women too have some responsibility in their own oppression. It seems to me that the only basis for denying women (50% or so of the population) responsibility in the customs and mores of society would be that they, in practically every society in history, have been pathetic little creatures that had not the will nor the intelligence to even begin to stand up to the big bad men. I don't accept this. I do not have so low a view of women. I see them as equal to men in will and intelligence. I suggest that both women and men were socialized in their various societies they way they were because such socialization served the ends of those societies--chief of which is survival. We should be careful of judging the customs and mores of societies in the past and the less advanced societies today. Much relates to the technology that a society possesses. Where infant mortality is high, mother's milk is necessary, and mom's own life expectancy is short, most of her life must be devoted to raising the children and keeping the home.
If women as a group were oppressed, I suggest that society was responsible; i.e., that both women and men were responsible. However, being responsible is not the same as being culpable. To assert culpability, one must show that the peoples in societies and cultures past had the means to establish customs other than the ones they did. The same goes for many societies today.
Lucy83 (author) on April 24, 2012:
Hi Jeanie, sometimes I have to block comments if they are too adult in language or if they're just spam. Just try posting again. Thanks for the compliment.
Jeanine on April 21, 2012:
Hi Lucy... I'm almost sure I left a note here but it never posted... I dig what you are writing... and would like to respond... how do I do that
Lucy83 (author) on April 16, 2012:
Oh do we get competitive. Lol. I'm always astonished when I hear that. Men and women rarely compete for the same things. That's perhaps why both think the others are much more cooperative. And women are often less open and more crafty about it but every bit as hostile and aggressive. I think men don't see this because they're hardly ever on the receiving end of female competitiveness. Just be thankful for that. Honestly, I'd prefer to deal with male typical competitiveness but maybe that's a case of grass on the other side of the fence.
Patrick on April 11, 2012:
I think the competitiveness is just a natural trait of being male. Our whole existence is a competition. I don't know if women feel the same, that they are in competition with other women. Among submissive males the competition is fiercer, I think, because there are so few dominant women to compete for, relatively speaking.
However, I regret making my last comment personal towards Jim. I should have kept to the issue rather than becoming confrontational. If it was my blog I would have rewritten it when I cooled off. Sorry about that, Lucy.
Lucy83 (author) on April 11, 2012:
Well, I don't get around to answering and reading comments nearly as much as I'd like to. That's why I'm often days late with approving the comments.
I also feel submissive men should learn to value each other or at least respect each other. From what I've seen, they are among the most aggressively competitive with each other. That's one thing that puts me off completely because it's so contrary to the submissive personality.
Patrick on April 08, 2012:
Lucy, I have thought about starting a blog debunking female supremacy, but I'm just not sure I have the time to respond to everyone who comments, as courteously as you do. I agree with you that many submissive males need help with self assertiveness, establishing personal boundaries, and valuing themselves.
@Jim: I have to respectfully disagree with just about everything you said in your last comment, sir. Where do I even start?
Encouraging men to be feminine? This is what I'm talking about - the idea that it's not ok to be a man or masculine. While we all have both masculine and feminine qualities, to teach our children that it is not ok to express intrinsic aspects of themselves, that they must disown part of themselves to be acceptable, is wrong. You're setting them up to meet an impossible ideal. Like it or not, the male and female brains are different. Males are, in general, more masculine than feminine. You can't educate males out of being masculine.
It must be voluntary? Sure, after you set up your matriarchal utopia which "emphasizes women's feminine qualities" and shames the masculinity out of all males, then it'll be truly voluntary, won't it?
Emphasize women's positive qualities not men's negative qualities? That's an interesting presupposition you slipped in there; women possess only positive qualities while men possess only negative qualities.
You are the type of self-loathing male we have been talking about. The type that can't find any redeeming qualities about men. Can you find even one benefit to masculinity? I can find several but I'll give you one for now. Ambition. The drive to step out into the world and make something happen. It is the driving force of life itself. It's what caused human beings to leave their birth place, sail the oceans, cure diseases, create technology, and establish civilizaton. It's not exclusively a male trait, but it is a masculine one.
But yes, I think that's a splendid idea. Let's cure the human species of this disease of masculinity.
Lucy83 (author) on April 05, 2012:
Thanks for the nice comment Jim,
I must add that many of the qualities needed to negotiate a career in business or politics are what we call traditional masculine qualities. The big mistake that modern feminists make is they call such careers non women friendly when in fact they're non feminine friendly. Meaning that women or men are not the problem so long as they're willing to cut back on typical feminine traits. To be a leader you have to sometimes be not cooperative or compromising.
Lucy83 (author) on April 05, 2012:
Patrick, that's a really interesting story. I wonder now how many submissive men fall into that trap? Certainly many that have come here seem to be in that situation. In my experience, most kind and gentle people are vulnerable to being used and abused by social predators (male or female). The problem with submissive men is, what makes you attractive is also what makes you so vulnerable. But living as an adult, submissive or not, means you must keep a certain amount of autonomy at all times. If only for the sake of personal safety.
Have you thought of starting a blog of your own where you describe some of these pitfalls and help inform other submissive men so they can be more careful. That could be very useful because I think there's very little to nothing out there that honestly intends to help submissive men.
Lucy83 (author) on April 05, 2012:
thanks for such a detailed comment. The subject of female oppression in history is very complicated and the term certainly doesn't do it justice. No doubt women have been in situations where they didn't have the right to do certain things that men had. By today's standards that would surely be oppression to some extent but in other periods, priorities were different as well. For all we know, most women never had any interest in politics and perhaps the right to take political action wasn't given to them not because they were oppressed but because they never demanded it. I'm simplifying greatly here of course but just trying to show that things aren't nearly as black and white as many people try to paint them.
Certainly women not being allowed to do something when men were is not evidence for oppression. Only if women demanded it in significant numbers and were forcefully denied that right can we call it oppression.
Jim on April 04, 2012:
Lucy, I agree with supporting a matriarchy. 3 points: first, it should emphasize women's feminine qualities, and encourage men to act the same way, not encourage women to be macho, aggressive, etc. Second, it should be voluntary. Yes, I love making women happy and love to help women succeed, but not everyone feels that way. Third, it should emphasize women's positive qualities, (their intelligence, enthusiasm and social skills) not men's (or society's) negative qualities. I am enthusiastic about helping women entrepreneurs, and am happy to work with them (and you).
Patrick on April 01, 2012:
I never thought of it like that, Lucy. It makes intuitive sense though, that a man who feels worthless himself, suddenly doesn't feel so bad if all men are supposed to be worthless.
When I was having trouble accepting my submissive desires I came under the influence, for a short time, of an intelligent and eloquent feminist blogger who convinced me that it was natural and morally right for men to be submissive (atoning for patriarchy and all that). Well, that was just what I needed to hear. I could better accept my desires because this is how things were supposed to be!
Actually, I didn't really buy into it, but I was able to suppress my critical faculty because now I had a justification for something I previously felt bad about. For about three weeks, I felt liberated and I began to parrot her rhetoric to other men, even though a small voice in the back of my mind kept saying "Are you buying this?" I finally admitted to myself that I couldn't defend the position I was advocating for.
I also realized that she couldn't handle being challenged. When I stopped "Yes Ma'aming" her, she gave me the spiel about not having to explain herself to a man, that I was confused by ideas put in my head by other men, and maybe one day I'll see the light and find a woman to serve.
So I guess both you and I are deluded. I still have submissive desires, I'm just not a fascist working for a female dictatorship.
Taylor on March 31, 2012:
I agree with you that Female Supremacy should not be in our society publicly. If two consenting adults want to display FS, hell even Male Supremacy, then the more power to them. Let them do what they want, but no one should ever be forced to do something that they don't want.
I like to be the dominant one in a relationship and my late gf and I had a great thing. Most of the time we had the role of MS where she did whatever I told her to do, and some of the times we would do the role of FS and I would have to do whatever she wants to do. (Speaking sexually in the bed).
However, while doing so we still respected the other persons own preference. For example, I loved being the one handcuffed, and she loved handcuffing, but I also like handcuffing the girl, but she hated being handcuffed... so even when I was the one in charge I would try and stay away from things that she didn't like and vice versa.
On the topic of women oppression. When I think of being oppressed I think of the Holocaust, Japanese interment camps, racism where a black person would be beaten or killed simply because of what color skin they had. As well as Native Americans. That is oppression and speaking of the United States specifically and not of the European Nations from the middle ages and before ( since I don't have to much knowledge about the actual history to comment on), I have not witnessed real oppression of women here in America.
As you stated in a comment, I'm going to paraphrase, women were abused based off social status, wealth, and power... Which also applied to poor men as well. And I have never witnessed through any history that women, as a collective, were ever oppressed based off of them being a woman. Have there been women that have been oppressed in history. Yeah, most definitely, but not based "solely" on the fact that she was a woman. If so, I would love to be directed to when.
People will argue that women have been second class citizens til recently. I would disagree with that. I have always maintained that men, thanks to chivalry, have been viewed as second class citizens; that men have always been viewed as disposable and that women were 1st class citizens.
In times before recent, that kind of ideology was needed. Men needed to be the protector, and the woman should use the man for protection so that she could survive and keep our species alive. Where 1 woman and 10 men.. you can only have 1 pregnancy in a year. Where reversed it you would get 10 pregnancies. But, we live in a world of just under 7 billion people; there is no more need for this whole women first ideology.
Look back to The Titanic. It was women and children first while the man would jump into the freezing ocean to try and survive. Or most recently any huge accident where lives needed to be saved, it is still women and children first. I agree that children should be first since they are our future but not women over men. If there was a burning building and there were 2 people inside, one of each sex, every single time our society will expect us to choose the woman 100% of the time. So, whose life are we really valuing as more valuable, as 1st class citizens?
The difference between back then and now besides the number of population is that back then... women appreciated the man for being her protector, now in our society men are protecting and putting women first but are... basically told how much of an a-holes they are. Just like you stated in the article that men are being told to be more feminine, but then when they actually are being feminine they are told to man up. But then once they man up, they get told they are insensitive jerks. I'm fairly young.. I'm 21, and I coach freshman baseball and I see so many of the 14 year boys I coach so confused on what to do with girls and come to me for some help because they don't know how to act.
Now this just something I witnessed the other day... I was walking to the High School to coach (I live a few blocks so why drive and waste gas) and I went passed an elementary school where kids were playing soccer. The boy goalie stopped the ball and then kicked it out to the middle of the field. But then a girl on his team turned to him and told him he missed his target and that he's an idiot and hit him a few times. I looked over to the teachers that were supervising to see if they saw it, and one of them sure looked like she did. She smiled and gave a little fist pump, almost like a "you-go-girl" thing.
Another fallacy we see all the time is the wage gender gap. Ask any girl around my age about it. Just your average girl that goes based off of media. Women make 76 cents or w/e for every dollar a guy makes for the same exact job. When women 20-30 make 2.1% more than their 20-30 male counterparts, and that the overall 76 cents per dollar is extremely off. Even my mom thought this was true until I introduced her to a book that explained "why men earn more". So, these strong strides to make women "equal" to men are focusing on things that are already equal if not already unequal in favor of women... and still accuse men. Which goes directly to your statement that female supremacy is arguable already upon us.
I feel like I kind of went off topic there... for a bit so I'm gonna stop before I clearly go way off topic.
I enjoyed this article and your stance on this issue.
Lucy83 (author) on March 30, 2012:
that seems to be how it works. Although I haven't had many people telling me about the benefits. Usually I get called deluded or misguided for not agreeing that men are useless - strangely mostly by men. I think they're terrified that I could attach any sort of value to men as that would mean I might value other men more than them. Maybe that's how they try to get some kind of self worth, by devaluing everyone else down to nothing.
And you're also very right about the supposed selflessness. There's nothing selfless about that attitude.
Patrick on March 29, 2012:
Interesting observation, Lucy. Submissive males are particularly bad for idealizing women, and among submissive males, female supremacist males are the worst.
I've seen it countless times where a submissive male will offer a vision of his ideal future of male slaves and female rulers, and when a woman objects to his vision simply because she's not interested, the male will try to sell her on why she should want it.
Don't you see the benefits to you, Ma'am? Don't you see how right it is? The submissive male can't fathom how every woman is not into his particular fetish. But it doesn't matter because she's just a prop in his world. In his mind, she's only there to play a role - for his pleasure. To whip his backside, "make" him wear panties, and "force" him to do humiliating things of his choosing. So much for the high-faluting language of service, devotion, and selflessness.
Lucy83 (author) on February 22, 2012:
Everyone look at Erik's comment.
This is another common kind of sexist bigotry I encounter a lot. The kind by which men paint this picture of the perfect woman in their heads and simply take that as if it were typical for women to be like that. They speak of women and femininity as if they were supernatural beings from a higher dimension. They will aggressively put down the male gender in the measly hope of making themselves look a little more attractive relative to the other males (thereby demonstrating the very message of male inadequacy in themselves).
And this was one of the more level headed comments of that kind. I've seen far more extreme versions.
Whatever lies behind this pseudo-self-flagellation, nothing good can come from it - for anyone.
Erik79 on February 16, 2012:
As time goes by women get empowered more and more and it is a great thing. Besides being the most amazing and beautiful things God ever created women are truly responsible for making this world a better place! Nurturers by nature- caring, detail oriented, patient, driven to create rather than destroy... And yes, woman's life is far more precious than man's at least from biological standpoint. As mentioned, ladies prove to be equally if not more capable than guys in almost any sphere (physical strengh aside). And that amazing ability to get anything they want thru mere charm, beauty and sexuality. I won't even go to sexuality department because its obviously women's domain. Bottom line- women ARE superior to men in so many ways. However- everything is always about balance. Trend of feminization of male population is not a good thing. God intended us to be warriors, providers and protectors and no real man should forget this. Besides- how many women would like to ALWAYS be the driving force, and always be "in charge?" How many women would realy like overly sensitive, feminine, door mat-like, feet kissing, submissive guys to be their partners in life? ladies are more likely to chose bad boy/jerk/testosteron filled guy figures. Subcontiously! So while submitting to that lovely, heavenly, womanly softness makes for a great sexual fantasy (guilty. Quite often I LOVE woman on top during all stages, being a "queen's" "sex toy", sometimes just wanting to "drown" in her) - there should be definite limits set in other aspects of life.
As time goes by and societies become more advanced, women will play far greater role in them. However 100% shift of power is not likely and not feasible.
Lucy83 (author) on December 13, 2011:
@ Robert Johnson,
I really am tired of telling people to read before criticizing. Stop being so lazy and just looking at the titles while expecting others to read your unqualified comments.
Not to mention the hypocrisy of your own comment when you say that women are better at working together. You don't even read your own comment to check for basic coherence.
Robert Johnson on December 05, 2011:
Why does one group have to be superior to another group? Cant being superior or submissive be left for each individual to assign to themselves? Why did you make this about fantasy, I think a matriarchal society would be a good thing because women are better at working together and are less aggressive toward others. Are African Americans suppose to enslave white people now? We should be working towards being EQUAL, not being on top. If you were a civilized and forward thinking person you might have realized this. I believe your ideas are inflammatory and set EQUALITY back. You are just as bad as the males you want to see out of power.
Berenice on December 02, 2011:
Thanks for replying; yea that's exactly what I noticed but didn't know how to say it! Whenever a men's issue comes up, it usually ends up being turned into a feminist issue, even though the issue mainly concerns the blokes. It's like, "oh, men get hurt by it... But women are the main victims"! I suppose centuries of male-to-female oppression could be responsible for this kind of thinking. Not saying it's the right way to go but yea... It's true... We modern Westerners tend to think of cultures such as the Kayan culture of Thailand and their long-neck ideal and the Ancient Chinese practice of foot-binding as being "primitive" so to speak, yet overlook our own craziness; starving ourselves, over-exercising, and (sometimes) anorexia nervosa, in meeting the ideal as espoused by contemporary magazine covers.
Lucy83 (author) on December 02, 2011:
thanks for the great comment. I took a look at your link too. Interesting article. Though I have a feeling the author is trying to squeeze in female oppression wherever possible as I've come to expect from feminists. It's as if they cannot talk about a problem affecting men without reminding us that they are still overprivileged. Besides that it's still a good read though.
Your point on weight with men and women is very true too. I think this is one of the worst cases of false media hype - the notion that the skinnier we are, the more we're worth.
Berenice on November 29, 2011:
I just wanted to say that I highly admire women like yourself and Hope Alexander who are not ashamed of voicing opinions that may sometimes go against popular opinion. I'm a crossdresser (you probably guessed... male!) who holds femininity in high regard, but at the same time, I'm neither a self-loathing man, nor do I feel that I've been placed in the wrong body. More so, I crossdress because I feel sexy and liberated in some women's clothes. In other words, the style I follow better helps me to express myself in ways that I would not be able to if I were to follow a typical mainstream men's fashion magazine (e.g. GQ, Esquire), which in my opinion are a tad bit Victorian and conservative for my taste (not that there's anything wrong with men dressing conservatively; just ain't my style!). As you said, a toned dude can look great provided he pulls off a lady's outfit properly. I particularly liked the quote that you included by Mr Obama, that "what boys can do, girls can do better". I think I can better understand my childhood insecurity. My mother once said something like, "I wish I had a girl instead; girls are so hardworking, so organized. Boys have no discipline, take things too easily". As a society, we have become immune to the damaging effects that these seemingly harmless remarks have on boys, and I applaud you for pointing it out. Furthermore, I do not believe that women are not aesthetically turned on by the male body. I know that many men's sites (oh hello patriarchy!) shame men into hiding their bodies from the public eye; while women in bikinis are a sight to behold, men in speedoes are disgusting, and should be covered up in surfer shorts. In fact, many women will claim that the naked male body does not inspire lust in them in the way a naked female body inspires lust in a man. I say that's BS and should be treated as such. We have been indoctrinated into believing that the female form is a work of art worthy of display, while the male form in contrast is a dirty, hilariously ugly piece of junk that is always better "left to the imagination". There's a gentleman named Hugo Schwyzer who writes for the Good Men Project, which is a feminist blog, and this article of his I found particularly well-written and thought-provoking.
(P.S. this is not to advertise the good men project, but I highly recommend it for anyone interested in further reading)
While the objectification of young pre-pubescent girls by parents I cannot agree with (parents making them wear several layers of make up and tight revealing outfits), at the same time I can't agree with the notion that "women are not turned on by men's bodies, therefore men should cover up if they want to attract a mate". It hurts both men, and women. Many men who grow up believing the notion that the male body is generally gross have no sense of their own aesthetic worth; they believe that only the single-digit bodyfat Calvin Klein models have the right to show off their bodies.
Also, we men are constantly reminded that we are luckier than women because, if a woman is slightly overweight, she won't likely find a mate, while if a man is slightly overweight, he will be okay. I contest that claim by saying that straight men LOVE women's bodies; thin or plump. In fact, I'm not ashamed to admit that I find plump women gorgeous (as I do thin women)! And I can bet that there are millions of guys who share my view. So the notion that "fat men are luckier than fat women" may be questioned..
But overall, I enjoy your blog and hope to meet more women like yourself who say it as it is!
Berenice Teh, Australia
Lucy83 (author) on November 12, 2011:
I don't mind people having these fantasies. I have them too but spreading this around as a sentiment for everyone to join in is causing a lot of harm to youngsters.
And the way women were socialized to play second fiddle never had the same kind of raw hatred as the way men/boys often get bashed. Nobody ever called for the extermination of women but men have and still are subjected to that idea. No matter how oppressed, there was always at least some value in being a woman. With men the label of worthlessness is very popular. We keep blaming men for sexism whilst subjecting them to the worst kind of sexism. Not a proud example of humanity.
Patrick on November 10, 2011:
"Being a man doesn't mean much and we should be ashamedof it."
Wow. That pretty much sums up the attitude that young boys are being bombarded with these days thanks to reactionary feminism. What chance do they have? If you ever have a son, put him up for adoption by sane and stable parents.
You began your rant about how women had been socialized to play second fiddle to men and how unjust that was. You and I agree on that. But I can't understand why you and your kind believe it is ok to do the same thing to boys and men.
Lucy83 (author) on November 04, 2011:
like I said in the email, get rid of your man hating attitude. This hub seems to attract people like you and it's getting repetitive.
If that fantasy turns you on, then by all means act it out in your personal relationships but don't come here prescribing it for others under claiming to want to improve society with it.
Jules on November 02, 2011:
All very well said Lucy. You have my support. It was the reason that women thought themselves to play second fiddle to men that I did psychology. It is a case of being brainwashed and that what is said in the press and media is taken by these poor women to be true. The only difference between man and woman is physical - That is all. Men have ruled religion, caused all wars and wrecked a planet nearly. Proud to be a man ? Not me. You Ladies deserve the opportunity that shall come your way I think. You can't do worse. You have my support even though that doesn't mean much. If there is a support group in this area is it possible to join it. Being a man doesn't mean much and we should be ashamedof it. Keep trying and I hope to hear if I can join some group in this field.
Deluxe489 on October 09, 2011:
While I do not know all that much about established biological differences in male and female thinking, I honestly believe that gender differences -perceptions of inferiority and superiority in leadership capability, academics, et cetera- are purely socially constructed. I think men and women are as capable one as the other, mentally. Sexism works both ways, but I think that eventually -in a very long time- it will be an issue of the past (though some other social problem will have probably arisen to take its place).
Lucy83 (author) on August 11, 2011:
You've got the world all neatly worked out sovan, haven't you?
sovan on August 11, 2011:
In brain male and female are same. But in power male are superior. In beauty female are superior. In denger beauty will not work. Brain and power is necessary. So male are ahead. So female supremacy is just a fantacy.
Jeff on July 31, 2011:
I'd like to remind folks that women have only been able to advance so rapidly in society because of all the laws and protections awarded to women that make it impossible for men to compete on an equal footing. Affirmative action, title IX, VAWA, and many more laws and policies have given women HUGE advantages over men. This is why women are advancing over men - NOT because women are naturally superior to men as some of you apparently think. Combine all these advantages with sheer hate and discrimination against men and anything masculine and you have a receipt for establishing psuedo-superiority for women. No doubt that most young girls grow up thinking of themselves as being superior to boys which leads into adulthood with women thinking themselves superior to men. But this is not a natural reality. It's a social engineering experiment that the federal government has created in order to create gender conflict between men and women which in return generates huge gains to the government. Who benefits the most from child custody? The government! Divorce? The government! Domestic violence? The government! Feminism is in bed with the government and it will remain that way as long as the government financially gains from putting women on top. It's NOT because women are superior to men but rather the government has created this pseudo-supremacy for women that no doubt upsets a lot of men who see any power and control being taken away by the government and handed over to women. The radicals of feminism run the feminist movement because radicals are more willing to fund politicians who will give them the power they need to make change happen in their favor. Passive feminist who may believe or want gender equality do nothing more than sit on their butt and keep dreaming. What they'll get in the end is what the radical feminists want women to have - and that's all the power and control over men. Many women are not happy about having to work a job today and wish they could be a stay-at-home wife or mother but they are forced to work a job and be a provider because radical feminists in the past fought for this. The passive feminists who wanted the option of working a job but really wanted to be stay-at-home wives and mothers were eventually forced to work a job. So today's radical feminists are fighting to establish female superiority and many females will find themselves with more power and control over their male counterparts than they really want as having power and control over someone else requires tons of responsibility. And I dont think women are going to want men they see as nothing more than grown children that depend on them for everything. Yeah, I don't think men or women really want a society like this because it will seem too fake and unrealistic. But as long as it generates conflict which in return generates more money and power for the government this trend will continue whether you're for it or against it.
Chris Fry from Cardiff, Wales (UK) on May 30, 2011:
you both need to check your facts. As a student studying for a BSc in Sport and Exercise Science (akin to a 3yr degree in kinesiology in the usa)there are only subtle differences in men and women. In terms of absolute strength, men are superior, but when compared for body mass to gain relative strength differences using allometric scaling, men are still stronger but the difference is small(McArdle, Katch and Katch, 2010). And men and women actually have a very similar split of muscle fibre percentage. Although no difference in the split of fibres, males do generally have larger muscle fibres, enhancing the physiological cross sectional area (PCSA) which helps strength - there is a positive relationship with muscle PSCA and strength (i.e. a bigger muscle can produce a greater amount of force.) Furthermore, when placed on the same resistance training programmes men and women will gain relative strength at the same rate (or faster) than males (Swedan, 2001).
McCardle, W.D., Katch, F.I. and Katch, V.L. (2010). Exercise Physiology: Nutrition, Energy, and Human Performance. London: Human Kinetics.
Swedan, N. (2001). Women's Sport Medicine and Rehabilitation. London: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.
Patrick on May 25, 2011:
I guess I have egg all over my face now. However, the model in my mind was mammals. Lions, tigers, bears, and any breed of dog I've owned. It's our nature to think of ourselves and generalize from there, I guess. You learn something new everyday.
Just as an observation, I have noticed that when females and males are the same weight, with untrained individuals, females tend to be bigger. However, I think that's due to a higher percentage of body fat which women need for certain biological functions. A 140 pound woman is starting to look heavy set, while a 140 pound man is scrawny. I could be wrong but I would think the man would still have more lean mass, which is what's important for strength.
Anyway, take that generalization out and I think the rest of my argument stands on it's own.
Lucy83 (author) on May 25, 2011:
I believe with most species the female is larger than the male. Certainly with most arthropods (and therefore most species) that is the case.
Still, Patrick's point is just as valid because our species, like most mammals, has larger males than females on average. Can't argue with that.
Patrick on May 25, 2011:
Did you rub one out while writing your fantasy about magical female muscles? The extent to which female supremacists, especially the male ones, will go to "prove" female superiority never ceases to shock me.
You're actually contending the average woman has the genetics to be bigger and stronger than the average man? I'm sorry to shock you, but greater amounts of testosterone in the male body (up to 10x greater than in the female) and human growth hormone are responsible for greater muscle mass in men. Larger male frames and greater muscle mass in males is a reality in almost every species on the planet. I'm sure there are some execptions, but that's what they are - exceptions. It is physically impossible for the average woman, even at the peak of her genetic potential, to equal the muscle development of the average man at the peak of his genetic potential.
Can we prove this? Yep. Look at the physiques of elite male and female bodybuilders. Those women are indeed impressive but they can't match the monstrous proportions of the men. According to your argument, these elite female bodybuilders should be dwarfing the men since it is physically impossible for males to develop muscles as big as the female. That pesky bone size thing.
What about strength? Look at the records for elite male and female olympic athletes in strength sports such as sprinting and weightlifting. The elite females would be middle of the pack if they had to compete with men. I'm sorry but those are just the facts.
I'm not sure about the scientific validity of your dubious assertions about bone size or the special qualities of female muscle, but I'm willing to take them at face value for the purpose of this discussion. Even if it's true that female muscles are stronger than male muscles of equal size, your ignoring the reality of the effect of testosterone and HGH on muscle size. Females simply don't have the hormonal mix necessary to get big and bulky.
You contend that greater testosterone levels in men are simply due to the division on labor amongst males and females. Isn't it possible, even likely, that the division of labor came about because of the greater size and strength of males, caused by the natural elevated testosterone levels?
Women taking on more physically demanding jobs in the recent past would have absolutely no effect on their genetic potential to produce testosterone. That is a matter of evolution which would require at least several hundred thousands of years to produce a measurable effect in the female genetic code. The physical demands placed on anybody's body will get them closer to their maximum potential, but you can not increase the limits of that potential. You've got what you were given at birth.
Heavy weight training does increase the production of testosterone in the body, not only for females but also for males, who already have a significant advantage in that area. So, your prescription for girls to take their guys to the gym and deflate their egos would turn out to be futile.
Of all the arguments I've heard in favor of female superiority, yours has been by far the most ridiculous one yet.
Lucy83 (author) on May 08, 2011:
Thanks for answering Rob and Dan,
that clears things up for me at least. Only my legs are stronger than my boyfriend's but that's because I did years of dancing. As for the upper body, I'm outmatched, plain and simple :(
Rob on May 08, 2011:
Men and women of about similar weight, height, body fat percent and training level usually don't have the same strength.
A woman(of similar weight, height, body fat percent and strength training level to that of a man) will have about 65-70% of upper body strength to that of a man, 75-85% of the lower body strength to that of a man.
A women(of similar weight, height, body fat percent who doesn't do any strength training or any other similar training) will have about 40-45% of upper body strength to that of a man, 70-80% of the lower body strength to that of a man.
Years of strength training and bodybuilding
Dan on May 08, 2011:
I don't buy this nonsense. I come from a family of all women, no father and I am the only male. My mom and my four sisters are older than me and much bigger. I am 5'7'' and my sisters are six foot on average. They are much bigger than I am, muscle and bone. We are all athletic but I am stronger than they are. This irritates them but I tell them I would trade some strength for more height. We all laugh at that. We will arm wrestle or just plain wrestle for submission-to decide who washes dishes. I haven't washed a dish in quite awhile. My mom laughs about this-and my sisters whine about it and two of them are body builders. But I consistantly beat them in the area of strength and endurance. Just thought you might want to hear this.
Lucy83 (author) on May 08, 2011:
Hi David AuCoin,
I didn't know that about female muscles being more efficient and I also didn't know that muscle size depends on bone size. What about bone density? Either way, men have far greater bone size than women on average so, short of malnutrition, you won't be seeing many women who are stronger than men.
I certainly wouldn't mind being stronger than my boyfriend but I still don't want more muscles him. They just don't suit a woman's body when they get big and his have a perfect size - lean and athletic. And as it is now, one of his arms is stronger than both of mine together although he doesn't even work out while I do (life's not fair). But he does have bigger bones than me so maybe that's what's behind it.
But your assumptions about domestic violence are a little off. You assume that women never perpetrate and men are never victims but that is a feminist myth which we really need to get out of people's heads. Also I don't think that violence is only about strength. If anything it's about weakness and helplessness.
David AuCoin on May 07, 2011:
How Girl Power Can Put An End To Domestic Violence.
Ask any man what has prevented him form lashing out with physical force against a man whom they have become angry with whom they suspect might be stronger then they are and, they will tell you it is fear that they might get their own buns kicked.Put this information along side of the recent discovery made by Generation X Girls that bone size determines muscle size which in turn determines strength. One other recent discovery when added to this information and we have the recipe for women preventing domestic violence.This other discovery is the superiority of female muscles!
It has been shown in several strength test that female muscles of equal size to male muscles are stronger! This is why High school Generation x girls have proven they can successfully wrestle against high school boys. Many a boy enamored with the myth that boys are by biology suppose to be stronger than girls has suffered the shock and humiliation of finding himself flat on his back being pined by a girl! As it turns out the boys are at a disadvantage because in high school wrestling wrestlers wrestle according to weight which correlates with bone size.
This means that they match wrestlers according to weight which correlates with bone size thinking that makes the match equal. what they didn't know and many coaches still don't know is that since bone size determines muscle size and that girl muscles of equal size to a male is actually stronger therefor a medium boned male can not develop a bigger muscle than a medium boned female provided they are both at their full potential.this means that a girl and a boy each having a 12 inch bicep, the female 12 inch bicep is stronger than the males 12 inch bicep!
The reason boys on average are stronger than girls is because boys on average have bigger bones. But as we have just noted in wrestling they thought they had leveled the playing field by matching wrestlers by bone size giving unknowingly the advantage to the girl because the male can not develop a bigger stronger muscle then
the girl because his bone size will not allow it. You can't build a big muscle on a small bone because if it could be done and it can't be done but if it did happen when the big muscle contracted it would fracture the small bone.
One other myth that generation X girls have shattered is the myth that girls don't have enough testosterone to develop big muscles.In times past males had bigger muscles and more testosterone than did females. It was mistakenly believed that the reason males had more muscle strength than females was because males had more testosterone. What they didn't know was that the reason males had more testosterone was because the role society assigned the males required more muscles which in turn caused more testosterone being developed in response to more demands being placed upon the muscles.
Now in modern times females are doing the same jobs as are the males and therefor putting as much demands upon their muscles as are the males which in turn has caused their bodies to develop the necessary testosterone. This is why men suffering from low testosterone are now being advised to do strength training because putting more demand upon the muscles will increase their testosterone levels.In like manner generation X girls have gotten into strength training because of their increased interest in sports. It was then that girls surprised themselves and shocked the boys as to how strong they could get. Many a girl working out with her boyfriend, discovered to her delight and his consternation that she was getting stronger than he was.This was because if the girl has bigger bones than her boy friend she can get stronger than he can and even if they are the same in bone size due to the fact that female muscles of the same size as the Male's muscles will actually be stronger.
Now then ladies lets see how we can make use of this information to along with and together with our brothers put an end to domestic violence. Mothers teach your daughters to choose a date that would make a good mate. In terms of our goal of putting an end to domestic violence a good date for a girl would be to date only boys who are of equal or better still smaller bone size.Why? Because the boy can not get stronger or for that matter even as strong as the girl.Why because as we have noted the Male's muscle can not be bigger and stronger than the female's because his bone size won't allow it.
Now what if the male has been working out and the girl hasn't? In this case naturally he will be stronger therefor the girl should not date the boy unless and until she if she really desires him has gone to the gym and developed to her potential which will ensure she is stronger than he is and even if he tried to get stronger than her he can't do it because his bone size won't allow it.
It would actually be a good thing for all girls to work out prior to dating to develop themselves according to bone size and then only as we have mentioned above date males of equal or smaller bone size. Now one other thing remains to implement this stragedy and that is to prove at the onset of the date that the girl is stronger than the boy.Why? Because if he doesn't know the girl is stronger than he is he might be tempted to get physically violent with her. If he knows he is weaker he is not likely to use force for the same reason we men don't use physical force against a man we know is stronger. This can be done in several ways. For example the girl might invite the boy to her gym and show the boy she is stronger by lifting a heavier weight than he can. still another option would be to take him my surprise and hurl him to the ground and get him in a hold he can't get out of. Why is it necessary to take him by surprise? It is
necessary because if you let him known you want to wrestle him he will probably let you because one very common male fantasy is being over powered by a girl. He will not suffer any loss of self esteem because he knows he let you win but by taking him by surprise his instinct reaction will be to use maximum strength so that the girl will know for sure she is stronger.
Having demonstrated to her potential boy or husband that she is stronger than he is he is apt to suffer a bruised ego. The smart girl will be quick to to put healing salve on his bruised ego by giving him a hug and saying I am not interested in you because of your muscles and should we Mary down the road I would not be marring you for your muscles. then add some more fluff by telling him of the qualities you admire in him. You can even add a little spice by saying which we know isn't really true but none the less no harm in letting him think its true that you know he can work out and catch up with you in strength but you love him all the more by sacrificing his (imagined) potential to get stronger than you. this will make him feel better about himself. After all he is making in his mind a big sacrifice for your peace of mind.This will go a long ways to soothing his male ego.
Actually girls you know why males work out? It is to develop their muscles so they can score with you. Oh they will say they are working out for health reasons but the truth is you girls have been sending males the message that your idea of a sexy man is a hunk. A hunk in the dictionary is thick set, well built abled bodied which means a strong man.Therefor you have been setting yourselves up for the possibility of domestic violence. Once you start turning down Tarzan and word gets around that your no longer attracted to their muscles but to their brains instead they will leave the gyms in droves and start going to college in pursuit of building bigger brains so they can score with you. Thus you have an opportunity to encourage boys to go to college in pursuit of building bigger brains. this solves the problem of too few males attending college.
therefor you owe it to society as well as to yourselves to follow the above stragedy. It will be good for you, it will be good for society, it will be good for males and the children who
Lucy83 (author) on May 01, 2011:
Seems like your comment was too long as it got cut off somehow. Either way. There was so much nonsense in it, I wouldn't know where to start answering. I had quite a laugh reading though, so thanks for your efforts.
Dracula Delacroix on April 30, 2011:
I have a question for you, Lucy. Why do you invert the genders from how they naturally are?
It seems a bit ridiculous how you assume women are now behaving feminine. What proof do you have that women are actually female or even feminine?
In the past, women wore armor and tougher clothes, to fight in wars. That was the tradition of every matriarchal empire of history. In other words women created the "manly" character themselves, and them alone. They are it's true origin and cause. Women were rarely feminine in the past. Ancient cultures had eunuchs wearing the cheap skirt as a sign of inferiority and slavery, while women wore real clothes as the chosen people. For several reasons, someone has been trying to reverse those traditional clothes of the past, to weaken the male role that females have in the world. And women are the Only ones who ever had a male role in this world, since they are the original "man" gender.
And those you now call "men", were nothing more than eunuchs dressed up in cheap dresses, and used as cannon fodder, house servants or cheap labour. Make up is not a female invention, nor are skirts. In the ancient world, "men" were the lesser, female gender of sin and worthless depravity, borne of satan, and other superstitions .... while "women" were the higher, divine male gender, of perfection and strength and other romantic nonsense that feeble minds are eager to embrace. Whenever you read a fairy tale, or historical account, realise that the genders were reversed. The eunuch class were the lesser women, while the female classes were the higher godly and manly classes. Meaning breasts and life-giving and milk feeding and emotional whatever else, Were Never Female Traits. They have always been purely masculine traits of divinity.
Why do you suppose the Templar Knights were slain as heretics by medieval crusades? They were gnostic christians who called Sophia (Baphomet) as the creator of this "world". The Oera Linda book testifies that so many are still fearful of the ancient masculine world where women ruled as gods, and the lesser female gender didn't even exist as an independant being.
Equality existed between women then, more or less, if not much truly than it does now. Because the divine man's gender, which is now women, socially speaking and to your understanding, had their true faith in God, or whatever they believed in. In my country in South-Eastern Europe, a temple of Nemesis was recently unearthed in an old Transilvanian city, home of a powerful revolution. Not to mention close to it, is the city of Sarmisegetuza where the Temple of Nemesis is in plain city in the eastern part of the city, next to the forest.
So as much as society tries to separate religion and matriarchy, in the past the MALE gender were only the women, far less inhibited than the women of today. And remember that the "male" traits were not mortal or human alone, they were also half divine or godly. So as much as this may offend you now, the women of the past were not only considered "The First Born" or the best, masculine race, but they were also feared as godly and supernatural.
In other words, in the ancient world there were no women. Only man giving birth to other men, breast feeding them, raising them, and so forth. The half breed human, which you now call "men" were the feminine breed, the helping hands and assistants.
Those "female suprematists" are not women, they are just men obsessed with their older role in society, and that is theirs for the taking. Society can never change in this world, everything stays the same. Evolution is just a word, absent deeper meaning.
So other than the foolish error of women forgetting their masculine supremacy over their female lessers, and reverting the words, those "suprematists" have an insight into old cultures.
What you have yet to accept is that society has already sought to exchange those two roles in life, and that every woman has been raised feminine, when she is actually a man, by character and potential. While every man was wrongfully raised as a woman, when in the past they were all forced by social laws to wear slave skirts like peasants, and so forth. The skirt isn't a female trend, it's a cloth used to express the servant status of a person, their willingness to work for others, or take orders. The skirt was not only the clothing of ancient men, it was a token of their poverty and halfbreeding. As the bible said, Adam was called to tend to animals as a shepard and field worker, as eunuchs have been ever since in society. They are the androginous familiar, devoid of any gender or genderly features, a ghola created by God to keep the earth habitable for Eve. Why do you think "male" is only a smaller part of the world "female"? Because men are defined as less than female. Biologically the Y chromozone has little genes, and weak chances of evolution, whereas the X chromozone appears doubly in female cells. In other words, only women are full humans, or "true humans" or "living beings". That's why they are the only ones able to give and sustain life, and that is why "women" is the word which contains within it "men", and not the other way around. It's like the difference between "shotgun" and "gun". A gun is a general undefined perhaps smaller, effeminate tool, while the Shotgun is the greatest, louder, stronger weapon. It's the same with women, who have breasts much larger than testicles will ever be. Women are simply more endouded in that area. Giant Balls are Manly, you know? Women will always be the manly gender, because they're biologically meant to. Also you should know that the ratio between men and women is something like ... 1:4. The androgynous version of a female, the eunuch appears here to be just a "mistake" of evolution, their Y chromozone is said to become extinct in 50.000 years, if evolution is real that is ....
You're also misinformed about Ancient Greece, before the muslim or christian cults, they had a triad of Goddesses, a TriGemma. Wether that was only one goddess of three natures or three different ones, they are the true cult of antiquity that every so called civilized fool brags about .... without even knowing their religion.
The ideea of strength in men, is a common misconception dued to their ancient slavery in mines, forests, work-places, that carries weight to this day. The burghs are the social class of slave-like worker drones, that helps society live easier. In other words, the true meaning of eunuchs was "work". As in labouring minion, who serves society, or dies doing so. That is what the idea of "strength" refers to when commenting on men. Who was born to toil as a commoner, shall do so, that's no secret. Why do you think the muscles are there for, and develop faster? Cheap labour, of course, it's nature's way of saying ... "Silly girl, you're too manly and divine to have to do everything on your own .... here's a little helper for you". And working with nature, as a farmer or animal herder is definitive for men/eunuchs because they are half-animal themselves. To live in nature with the animals is easy for the half-animal, that is why they are commonly called as workers or laborers. In women the strength is not the lesser one of slaving away in a barn or picking fruit ... it's the spiritual and stronger forms of strength.
So as a personal question ... in a women where only women are the prime race, stacked atop a herd of animals, can there really be supremacy? Supremacy holds meaning within the premesis of equality or at least a vague measure of comparisson. But women are just too different from most other species to be compared to the animal kingdom.
In a sense it's the brute natural "fatness" that animals have that give them the power to sin, and be evil. Women are far too weak to be capable of sin. Few women learn to be strong enough to commit sins, so most of them find it easy to be spiritually pure. If nature's force or "strength" is one of the forces of sin, then women are uncapable of sin by their own general design. Thus more likely to lead perfect or special lives. Animals can sin very easily, slaughter each other, rape each other and
Rusty on April 18, 2011:
I wrote that "men would present their case for gender equality and I think that women would listen--just as men listened to women." You described this comment as "seriously optimistic" and further commented that you couldn't see "a rational gender discourse" "happening by itself." Yes, I agree with both points but feel they miss the mark.
However, first let's put my points in context. Before my text just quoted, I present the possibility that men organizing to fight against a matriarchy “could take the form of a revolt that would lead to a re-subjugation of women." After my quoted text, I make the point that "you have to accommodate any group that has the power to seriously hurt you." Later on I make the point that you want to avoid a situation . . . From these comments, I think it should be clear that I'm thinking that any discussion between men and women concerning men's organized grievances would take place within a threatening context--not necessarily explicit, but there.
Second, I said that women would listen to men JUST as men listened to women. That statement has double implications. The first implication is that the process of women getting men to listen was long and bumpy and so I would expect the process of men getting women to listen would be long and bumpy (but I do hope that principles of equality and fairness established in the first process would to some extent shorten and smooth the second process. I think this is a reasonable hope). The second implication is that women can be just as rational, understanding, and empathetic as men. Men DID listen to women. Consider the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution that effectively gave women a federal, constitutional right to vote. The amendment was drafted by Susan B. Anthony with the help of Elizabeth Cody Stanton and introduced to Congress in 1878. However, it was not added to the Constitution until 1919--41 years later! This is the "long and bumpy" part already covered. More to the point of the second implication, we should remember that at the time of passage, the president, nearly all members of both the Senate and House of Representatives, nearly all governors, and nearly all state legislatures in nearly all states were men. Notwithstanding this, the majority of men involved in the process got past their gender to recognize the just claims to equal voting rights by the other gender. The proposed amendment passed both the Senate and the House with more than two-thirds majorities. All 48 of the states existing in 1919-1920 ratified the amendment. The constitutionality of the amendment was challenged but rejected by the all male Supreme Court. I would say that reason, understanding, and empathy won out, albeit after a "long and bumpy" process.
What is the alternative to a rational coming to terms to the general satisfaction of most women and men? I suggest that the obvious alternative is some kind of irrational settlement--one based on force, where, might, not reason, makes right. This would be a realization of the threat implicit in the process that I discussed above. It is an alternative that women as a class would not win as the dominance of patriarchy in human history shows.
Of course, the process INTENSE male right's discourse would not "happen by itself"--there would have to be a "trigger." In a sense, though, The process is going on now. As you point out, there are now men's activist groups. However, they are not numerous, not well-funded, not getting a lot of media attention, not influential as lobbyists, and so on. For men there is nothing that remotely corresponds to the National Organization for Women. There are numerous "women's empowerment groups" and their existence is generally approved of or at least the need for them is generally accepted. However, most people, I think, would find the idea of "men's empowerment groups" strange and maybe even reactionary male chauvinism. They would think such groups strange because unneeded--because men are still the dominant sex in business and the government. However, this line of comments began Omphale's thesis that society is evolving toward an overbearing matriarchy that would be an institutional female supremacy in which men as a class would become second class citizens. I have granted that there does seem to be such a trend beginning with girls outperforming boys in schools and women getting a majority of college degrees. I have maintained that this alleged trend toward a female supremacy will not be realized. If nothing else, at some point, a "critical mass" of alienated and disaffected males will have been created that will either cause a rational settlement agreeable to both genders or a reactionary "might makes right" resolution to the advantage of men. It is the interest of women as a class to make rational agreements satisfactory to the majority of men long before such a critical mass arises (i.e., the "trigger"). I believe that women will make such agreements because I believe that they can be just as "rational, understanding, and empathetic" as men have showed themselves to be on gender issues. So, I think the issue comes down to this: "Are women in general as rational, understanding, and empathetic as men in general?" If we answer affirmatively (as I have), then we might further ask, are women in general under the dominion of women's groups that have betrayed the egalitarian feminist ideal of gender equality?
Patrick on April 13, 2011:
@Allen & Gail
Thanks for clearing those issues up. You and I think exactly alike on this issue. Regarding the political female supremacists, I am just as much against them as you are but I figured you couldn't have read the whole article if you assumed Lucy was one of them.
I have debated many female supremacists and their male cronies here at hubpages and in many places across the web, getting kicked off a couple blogs in the process.
It's actually started to turn me off of femdom even though I have a submissive side, but it seems every discussion forum these days ends up talking about how women rule - or should rule the planet. I'm sick of it myself, which is why I appreciate the balanced approach Lucy brings to the discussion.
Allen on April 12, 2011:
Patrick, Gail and I only skimmed the article-big mistake! We have now rectified that and apologised to Lucy. However, we still stand behind what we have posted as it was mostly directed at other posters. Now, from your questions, I can see I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. Late night blogging-it will get you! When I speak of these "first wave people" I mean it is the first steps towards idoctrination they attempt. Testing the waters you might say. If two people are consenting and want to live this way. Fine so be it. We have no problem with it as long as they dont pressure their children with it. The only time we have a problem with it is when kids are affected(not allowed to choose their path) or these people want to make a legal, social, political, business or discrimination issue out of it. Misguided, ignorant people with an agenda is a dangerous thing! That is what we meant, and we stand behind it-period! As for men propping up women-let me clarify that with a personal experience from my family. My great grandfather was a man's man back in his day. He loved my great grandmother deeply but he held views like this about women-they should be bare foot, pregnate, and in the kitchen-if I want your opinion I'll give it to you-when I walk in the door after work, dinner had better be served shortly! In his day that was very typical for men. However some men said this isn't right and spoke up. these men helped start the road to equality. If they hadn't where would the womens movement be today? Most likely no where, men showing other men it is O.K. to stand up for equality for all, helped give it a legitimate foot hold and evolve. Women today stand on their own, they don't need men to prop them up-but I'm sure they are thankful for the support and help. That is all We meant by that statement. Now as for a new female manager that came in roaring-over the years I have had many managers that I have had to let go for many differant things. The reason I use her as an example is to illustrate that women are no better or worse in leadership roles than men. It often boils down to the individual not the gender. On this particular manager it was the female staff who e-mailed me constantly about her. They were right, she was not a good fit. In business, what is more easily replaced-long term employees who are loyal,happy,knowledgeable and hard working. Or one new manager who is in over her head and taking it out on employees. Remember I'm in business to make money, this is not a hobby. The plumbing you carry has no effect on me in business. Lets talk education-for thirty years or more people have been saying we have to do more for girls in education and self esteem. We did and girls are doing great now, unfortunately boys fell behind. It wasn't done delibretly it just happened, now people are saying we need to do the same for boys and that is great. It was not stating there was an agenda for this to happen, just fact-period. Last but not least-a patriarchy or matriarchy in my opinion is not desirable either way. Neither of them is equal to true equality. I fimly believe we are acheiving a better society for all. one based on equality, but like I said it wont always be fair or right, the road might be bumpy but if people just keep working towards it- we will get there, were very close! Gail and I hope this cleared things up for you.
Lucy83 (author) on April 12, 2011:
Wow thanks Allen,
Raising children. That's a very good question. Firstly, I would NEVER raise any child to be submissive. That would be abuse in my opinion. Especially with boys. Yes, my taste in men is of the more submissive kind but that has nothing whatsoever to do with raising boys. But I would also not try to desensitize them which is what lots of parents and fathers in particular do with their boys. I just cannot fathom how parents can do that to their boys.
As for raising boys and girls differently, this is a hard one. There seem to be two opposing schools of thought on this. One side, the feminists, believe that men are the same as women and should be raised identically. The others believe that men and women are inherently different and should be raised accordingly. I think both are too totalitarian about it (must be different or must be the same). Certainly boys and girls should be given just as much love and attention. I think they all make the mistake that they try to raise children to be the ideal that they have set for themselves and forget that what works for them might not work for their kids.
But that's all easily said when you don't have your own kids yet.
allen on April 11, 2011:
Lucy, Gail and myself wish to apologise to you, we now better understand your position. If that life is best for you and your partner-so be it. Gail and I both served in the military so we all have the right to choose whats best for ourselves. Freedom-another powerful word. However, We have question for you-how would you raise children? Would the boys be raised differently from the girls? Would they be raised to be submissive or would you let them choose their path.
Patrick on April 11, 2011:
"Lucy and her kind at this juncture are what I and many others in business call the first wave. Their job is to tell as many as will listen, that it is no threat and really is a normal way of life."
Did you actually read the article, Allen? I mean, really read it? To the end? My bet is you read the title and maybe the first paragraph or so and then got the guns blazing. You should seriously read the article before you start slinging mud. If you do that I'm sure you would be thoroughly embarrassed about what you wrote.
The only thing this article said was a normal way of life is a femdom relationship between two people, if that is what they choose. You stated both you and your wife are switches in the BDSM world, so I'm sure you can understand that. Ideological female supremacy is explicitly denounced in the article.
"Women are achieving greater succeses today with mens help in the political and business world. They could not have done it without that help-period."
That's kind of a peculiar statement. One the one hand, I would agree that men have played an important role in the emancipation of women. If you're using that as an example of society favoring equality over supremacy then I would agree. On the other hand, it sounds like a back handed comment intended to denigrate the achievements of women; the little woman can't be successful without the big strong man propping her up. It makes me wonder if you're really as comfortable with the idea of equality as you say you are. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean?
"I have had many female upper level management in my companies, well educated, that came in roaring, only to let them go in short time because the employees, men and sometimes mostly women, were tired of their nonsense(poor team building skills,arrogance and treating everyone like they were less). Same as with some men."
Another peculiar statement which highlights a possible underlying bias. EVERY woman in upper level management has behaved this way and was let go due to mutiny by her subordinates? That is what you imply and I find it difficult to believe. I know there are some women with a chip on their shoulder, needing to prove they are better than men, but people that make it to that level are usually secure enough in themselves to not have to do that. Note the qualifying word "some" when you refer to men of the same breed.
"As for education lets give boys the same treatment we have girls for thirty years and we will see a quick turn around for them. My brother being in education tells me government, schools and parents are working on this now."
If that's true I think it's great! If our boys are struggling we should help them the same as we have helped our girls; not to help them "compete with the girls" as if we have an interest in one gender beating the other, but to give all our children an equal opportunity to succeed.
"Society will grow less patriarchal- but for how long. In my opinion having watched changes for decades-not long. Most people are focused on Equality not supremacy."
Are you equating patriarchy with equality? You also seem to be implying that a more or less patriarchal society is desirable.
These are just some observations I've made about your comments which I think make you appear less for equality than you are painting yourself to be. If you could explain what you meant by them I may change my opinion.
Lucy83 (author) on April 11, 2011:
Fire (aka DavyBoy), I have told you that I do not tolerate sexism in these threads. I realize that you think phrases like
"Respect has to earned and women do nothing to earn to it. "
are not sexist, but pretty much everyone else would agree with me that they are and if you wish to comment here, you will have to respect that. And, yes, it would be just as sexist if the genders were reversed.
Normally I'd give give you a lot more leeway but, considering that you are the same troll who I've been arguing with over what constitutes sexism and what doesn't for the past week only posting under a different name, you're out of luck.
Lucy83 (author) on April 11, 2011:
Excuse me Allen but I'd appreciate you didn't lump me into some group. Read the post properly and you will see that I'm quite critical and sober about the subject.
In fact, there was a long argument with someone who reckoned I was intolerant towards people who lived the lifestyle. He fought until the bitter end to try and make it look like I'm "anti-female-supremacy" - much like DavyBoy in the "women leaders" thread who tried to make me look sexist but that was just a retaliatory insinuation. That troll was in a state of sheer desperation when he ended up just relying on repeating "I won and you lost" over and over again together with pointless name-calling.
Both of them made the mistake of not reading my post properly before criticizing it. I think many people just see the title and then think they know what I'm saying. I hope you're not another one of them.
Allen on April 10, 2011:
Where is this matriarchy? MY wife and I don't see much of change anywhere-remember the first thing people do when they are trying to sell something is get everyone who is on their side to tell you how wonderful it is. Make it sound like they have numbers on their side. That it is becoming the norm and you should just surrender to it. Wrong, get into business or politics these are standard tactics. Lucy and her kind at this juncture are what I and many others in business call the first wave. Their job is to tell as many as will listen, that it is no threat and really is a normal way of life. Besides who are we hurting-we just want to live our lives. Then it slowly snowballs into a nightmare because of one word "Incrementalism". This is a powerful word. This is how all supremacies start. Think I am lying, read history. My wife, Gail, and myself play in the bdsm world. We are both switches and enjoy the kink, power and submission of it. It has made our marriage full, exciting and fun. WE are not against bdsm and belong to a group of like minded people. The group we belong to is rather exclusive, you have to be invited in. You can't just join. It takes sometime to once asked-paperwork for legal reasons of privacy protection. That said, we brought this belief up to the group and everyone was disgusted. One of the older fem doms I spoke with told me she was strong feminist-she had been in fighting all types of oppresion her whole life! This female superiority idea is an abomination. If this is what feminism has turned into maybe the sexual revolution was wrong! She is old and wise, trust me. These people do not have as much support as they would like you to believe. Society will balance out toward equality for all. It wont always be fair or right but we are only human-not gods or goddesses.
Lucy83 (author) on April 10, 2011:
Welcome to the discussion Fire,
thanks for your contribution but please refrain from sweeping generalizations about the genders or any other group. That is not the level of debate that I wish to see here. I'm referring to phrases like
"They want everything and they want it for nothin."
Or do you really think that applies to every woman in the world?
Fire on April 10, 2011:
Alien you have an amazing piont about superiority being the ideas of the weak. I totally agree with you there dude! I kinda think women have an inferiority complex and thats why some of them like feminine men. Men who are more like them in other words.
I dont believe anyone is superior to another but if we look at this the other way round we can see men are often bigger, stronger and as alot of studies show also more likely to be geniuses. The only thing a woman can do that a man cant is have a baby. Men can do everything women can and alot more due to greater physical strength. I was watching the Formula One racing today and it occured to me that this sport is open to anyone but women still cant crack it. It takes alot of physical strength to do it and the g-forces are punishing to your body. Men have the advantage and if a girl ever wants to take part in it she will have to work even harder than the men. Most guys wont ever make it in that sport!
I dont think i understand you when you say a matriarchy is never gonna happen. It has happened! Most of this planet is a matriarchy and women have set this world up to suit themselves. The reason for this is that men have allowed it. The only place women dont get their way is in the Middle East.
If chicks wanna prove they are equall they have gone about it all wrong. They want everything and they want it for nothin. Sad thing is they are getting it!
Why do us guys allow them to walk all over us even though we know its bad for our kids, our country and ourselves as men???
Allen on April 09, 2011:
I have always believed in equal rights for all, period. I and my wife believe any kind of so called superior or superiority is a cover up for a weak minded individual with a shallow ego. These people always claim its in our best intrest and that it is good for all. What a lie! Do you think that the majority of us dont see thru the pseudo so called science and research? If you really look at history, you should notice that everything travels in cycles. Now that said one would also notice that these cycles are getting smaller. By smaller I mean that the changes take less time to occur. Meaning we are repeating history faster all the time. Good or bad, it's happening. Now throw in changes for society as a whole or a small group of people-these changes are happening faster and faster. Meaning they have less time to take effect, change or evolve. They make the dent or inroad but that is about all. The more things change the more they stay the same-good or bad. Women are achieving greater succeses today with mens help in the political and business world. They could not have done it without that help-period. It does not threaten me as a man. because as with men it most always is about money and respect. I have had many female upper level management in my companies, well educated, that came in roaring, only to let them go in short time because the employees, men and sometimes mostly women, were tired of their nonsense(poor team building skills,arrogance and treating everyone like they were less). Same as with some men. As for education lets give boys the same treatment we have girls for thirty years and we will see a quick turn around for them. My brother being in education tells me government, schools and parents are working on this now. He expects a changed difference in the future-a positive one. This benefits all, male and female. My wife laughs when we talk about women being gentler and kinder to life or better stewards of the home and domestic authority. HER words "Abortion is that's good stewardship? Goddess worship how is that good for family?
And these weak men living a perverted fantasy and lie, how is that going to help them evolve and grow? What about the kids? We know garbage when we see it. Her best friend sent us some links about this and that she was going to present this to her husband. She was going to tell him this was in their families best intrest. Well, she now has a very nice apartment. Her exhusband still has the house and the kids. The kids were so disgusted that they wont speak to her. My wife, Gail, still talks to her and she has explained that this particular subject is wrong for families. It is wrong for our future and our country-period. As far as a matriachy- never going to happen. To much resistance from those of us with brains. Society will grow less patriarchal- but for how long. In my opinion having watched changes for decades-not long. Most people are focused on Equality not supremacy. My wife and I make an great team because we are equal in each others eyes. We as a society will go further and farther as equals than as to opposed groups!
Lucy83 (author) on April 02, 2011:
is that really true that companies are somehow stopped from researching the male pill? But why would they follow that order unless they don't see enough profit in developing one?
As for men being less likely to want children, I'm not sure if it's so simple. Given how the law is currently stacked against fathers, I wouldn't be surprised if men would be much more willing to have children if they didn't fear that their children might be taken away from them.
Rob on April 02, 2011:
"Perhaps something like a male contraceptive pill would do that."
Actually, I think that it could get developed in 2 years time but pharma companies are so to say "ordered" not to work on it.
Male contraceptive pill would possible be something very dangerous for the Western society. Given the fact that total fertility rate in most countries is below below replacement levels and that all studies show that men are 4 times less likely then women to want children at any specific time, male contraceptive pill would possibly bring total fertility rate to maybe even below 1 - which would definitely be a point of no return, dying out. But hey, all societies come and go, let's not kid ourselves that we're here to stay, many before us thought the same of themselves and are now only remembered in history books.
Lucy83 (author) on April 01, 2011:
"The men would present their case for gender equality and I think that women would listen--just as men listened to women. We have reached higher standards of freedom, equallity, and justice, including gender fairness.. Women and men would work somethng out acceptable to both."
I realize you were just hypothesizing but wow, that is seriously optimistic. I would hope that is the case but can't imagine it really. As long as there are advocating groups for either gender, there will always be a gender war. I mean, we already have men's activists demanding more rights and all I see is feminists fighting them and them fighting back with mutual accusations of misogyny/misandry and dishonesty and a ton of name calling. The whole discourse on gender issues is highly adversarial even though anyone who wants things to get better must see that that approach is hopeless.
A rational gender discourse? I can't see that happening by itself. Only if it accompanied some other radical developments. Perhaps something like a male contraceptive pill would do that. Actually, I really wonder what that might do to society.
Rusty on April 01, 2011:
Omphale makes the standard argument for our society evolving into a de facto matriarchy--that education naturally leads to power and since the average woman will have more education she will have more power. The argument is based on trends. However, it is also based on the assumption that these trends will continue until a state of matriarchy is achieved. I believe this assumption is suspect. She (I assume "she") goes further and predicts that in this hypothesized de facto matriarchy, the difference in achievement between the sexes will be so great that without the need for any legal suppression of males, males will feel so greatly inferior to women that they will become very submissive to women and even feminine. This second prediction does not seem to be based on trends as much as assumptions about female and male psychology (maybe with some wish-fulfilment thrown in). In any case, the occurence of men becoming submissive depends upon a very strong matriarchy being established in the first place and it is that prediction that I propose to concentrate on.
The most basic trend toward a de facto matriarchy is that of girls and women outperforming the males in education, from which proceeds a host of other trends. However, trends have a way of reaching a point of equilibrium. In higher education, we may have reached equilibirium. I do not say that we have reached equilibrium, only that we may have. I do not think anyone knows for sure.
Also, trends compete with other trends. One trend is that the more educated and/or career minded women have fewer children. If birth rates fall below a certain level (as is the case in some European countries), then the population shrinks. However, modern economies seem to require a stable population at least and maybe an increasing one. An obvious solution to this problem is to encourage higher birth rates. Only a couple of decades ago, pressure was successfully put on women to join the ranks of the paid workforce. At the same time, many were discouraged from being stay-at-home moms. That system of valuation could reverse and women could be pressured to have more children and be stay-at-home moms (Note: this possibility does not apply to China!). I do not say this will happen, only that it could.
The trend toward women becoming more numerous in the workplace, holding better paying jobs, and getting more into politics may reach an equilibrum before it reaches the point that women are the majority in boards of directors and legislatures. This may happen not because of womens' lack of ability but because of lack of interest compared to that of men. Many women choose to sacrifice career for motherhood.
There might be another revolution in education similar to the on-going one that made K-12 schools so "girl friendly." This new revolution would make schools as boy friendly as girl friendly. The "girl friendly" revolution need not have been, but unfortunately was, "boy unfriendly." The average intelligence of each sex is roughly equal. Thus, if girls are outperforming boys in K-12 schools as much as they do, it is must be because schools are not educating boys to their full potential. They are failing the boys. They are descriminating against them. Back in the 70s, feminists of all kinds noted that girls did not do as well as boys in math and they concluded and got eveyone to believe that the only explanation for this "gap" was that girls were being descriminated against. Hence, schools were made to become more girl friendly not just in math but overall. Well, what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. That same logic used by feminists to make schools more girl friendly applies equally for making schools more boy friendly.
There might also be a reassessment of the practice of many employers requiring bachelor degrees for jobs. Back in the 70s, feminists successfully challenged physical requirements for many jobs, like police officers and firefighters. These physical requirements had a "disproportionate impact" that disadvantaged women. Because of this, courts decided that many of these physical requirements were not really relevant to actually doing the job. Today, the knowledge gained in getting a bachelor's degree in the liberal arts does not seem to be really required for many jobs where the degrees are required. This is having a disproportionate impact that disadvantages men and the practice could be challenged by "masculinists" just as feminists made their challenge against artificial physical requirements for many jobs.
What else might develop that derails the alleged trend toward a de facto matriarchy? Perhaps the most important and likely development would be that of men organizing to stop the trend. This organizing could be "orderly" or, worst case scenario, it could take the form of a revolt that would lead to a re-subjugation of women. If the organizing happened, it would start off orderly (well, more or less, maybe some jock burning!) The men would present their case for gender equality and I think that women would listen--just as men listened to women. We have reached higher standards of freedom, equallity, and justice, including gender fairness.. Women and men would work somethng out acceptable to both. The MORALITY of politics is that you ought to accommodate the basic rights of all--including minority groups. In fact, majority groups have to be especially concerned about not violating the basic rights of minority groups. A civilized society is largely measured by the way it protects its weaker members. The REALITY of politics is that you have to accommodate any group that has the power to seriously hurt you.
An accommodation made by some European countries is that of requiring that legislatures and boards of directors have a certain quota of women (around 40% I think). If the distribution of political and economic power for the sexes were reversed, the accommodation might be reversed. Legislatures and boards of directors might have to have a certain quota of men. In general, I oppose quotas because I believe in equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, etc. I believe in a meritocracy. However, in these comments I am not saying so much what I want to happen but what might happen. Better quotas than the destruction of society by a large number of angry, resentful, disenfrancised men.
Well, there is much more that could be pointed out about trends reaching equilibrium or being derailed by new developments or other trends. However, I think I have pointed out enough to give pause for thought. In an earlier post, I remarked that I thought that there is good reason to think we are headed toward a de facto matriarchy. However, there is a big difference between "good reason" and "inevitable." Just as important, maybe more so, there is the issue of how "strong" the hypothesized matriarchy would be. Omphale hypothesizes a very strong matriachy. It would be one with "nearly all power residing in the hands of Women." It would be one in which women have so much power that males in general will feel so inferior to women in general that they become very submissive and feminine. We don't know just how much of human behavior is due to nature or nurture, but millennia of men being men tells me she goes too far.
omphale on March 22, 2011:
Although many here seem to have an aversion to Female Supremacy as an evolving structure for society on the basis that it negates individual rights, the eventual movement towards nearly all power residing in the hands of Women seems inevitable. Since the first small sops of rights began to be offered to Women but slightly over a century past, an enormous exchange of status has occured.
The momentum for the reversal of the relative positions of the sexes will likely accelerate, and although there will always be those exceptional males who keep pace the GENERAL concept of the Female as superior will increasingly be accepted, merely because of the reality that shall be seen in society. Women but 60 years ago were but a small fraction of college graduates. Today they are a STRONG and expanding majority. In twenty years Women gradustes shall likely outnumber males by as much as a 3 to 1 ratio, a norm that portends similar discrepancies in positions of influence in business, education, government and POLITICS.
And although this shall happen without any real LEGAL suppression of males, the natural outcome for Women, seeing the imbalance of power in their hands, shall be assertively to expect and to demand deference from males who (also clearly noting their level of lessening male importance) shall internalize most, nearly all or EVEN a higer level of the submissive qualities they once had forced upon Females. And since what affects one's perception affects all of one's actions and self image the changes in future male role shall extend to personality, psychology, behavior, demeanor - EVERYTHING. Truly expect that if the final resulting male that develops even under a construct of a 'level playing field' were he to be viewed by someone from the present or two generations past, should not seem highly inferior, subjugated and most shockingly more 'feminine' in nature and position than his Female counterpart.
Rusty on March 21, 2011:
Lucy, sorry to have dropped the "L" in your name in the previous post. Also, thanks for answering my question about what you mean by ways and means of empowering women.
Rusty on March 21, 2011:
I oppose national, racial, gender, and other supremacises because they violate the equality of all persons with respect to their basic rights. Note that I used the phrase "with respect to." The idea of equality is that of a relation between two or more things WITH RESPECT TO something. If I say Jane is equal to Bob, and do not specify the way in which they are equal, I haven't communicated a complete thought. To complete the thought I must specify the nature or measure of the equality (or lack thereof). For example, that Jane and Bob are equal in height. In geometry I might say Angle A is equal to Angle B and not add "in degees." But then I would be speaking in a context in which the "with respect to" is understood and does not have to be constantly restated. However, in many (most?) discussions, we shouldn't assume we know what the "with respect to" is.
An essential thesis of any supremacy is that one group is superior to another with respect to something. If the "something" were identified and critically examined, I believe that claims of group supremacy would collapse (at least to the point of making untenable claims that one group should "rule" another). I have identified four "somethings" of importance when considering group relationships (there may be more than four). One is that of basic rights, a second is that of abilities, a third is cultural valuation, and the fourth is that of private, partner relationships.
First, basic rights are those that we humans have by virtue of simply being human. They are "inalienable rights" like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I maintain that all persons are equal WITH RESPECT TO basic rights. If, for example, the sexes are equal with respect to basic rights, then the one should not oppress the other. Equality of basic rights leads to equality of opportunity for if you deny a person equality of opportunity you deny her or him pursuit of happiness. I maintain that one should reject any theory that denies the equality of persons with respect to basic rights and equality of opportunity for all persons. This includes theories of sexual, racial, national and other supremacies..
Second, there are all sorts of abilities. Their importance varies with the technological status of a society. It is obvious to me that females as a class and males as a class are unequal WITH RESPECT TO numerous specific abilities. The abilities associated with brawn and brain have always been important, but as cultures have advanced in technology and in social and economic complexity, the abilities associated with brain have become more important. Girls and women are surpassing boys and men in education and arguably are superior students (there is the issue of, "Do our educational methods disadvantage boys?) Because of this educational advantage, there is good reason to believe that women will dominte the ranks of the best paid, most prestiguous, and most authoritative occupations. In short, there will be a matriarchy -- the average woman will have more power than the average man. In a culture of equal opportunity, the matriarchy will happen without laws giving special advantage to women. It will be a de facto matirarchy that will happen because the average woman is a better student and the modern world rewards brains not brawn. The female appears to be superior to the male WITH RESPECT TO respect to the abilities required to be a good student and in a culture of equal opportunity, this leads to women having more power. To be more precise, women will comprise the majority of high paid, prestiguous, and authoritative occupations. This will happen not because "women as a class" deserve more power but because more individual women will deserve it. As I pointed out in earlier posts, the focus should be on the individual.
Third, cultures do seem to value one sex more than the other. Lucy, Suzie, and others agrue that modern societies value the female and the feminine more than the male and masculine. This may or may not be true. I am not prepared to agrue one way or the other. I would point out first that there are numerous cultures that have valued the male and masculine over the female infantcide. For example, there are societies that have practice female infantcide because they desire the first born to be male. Further, cultures change and yesterday's cultural valuations are not today's and today's may not be tomorrow's.
Fourth, in a partner relationship between a woman and a man there is no majority and so one partner in some sense and degree must "yield" authority to the other. In patriarchical societies, the woman generally yields to the man, but, I think, not in every sphere of decision making. In household matters, the woman generally reigned and also on when the couple would have sex -- a very important power. Although a husband could phyiscally force sex on his partner, few would do so for love of her. The degree of "yield" would be what I have called "deferential" as opposed to submission. For me, ideally a partnership of woman and man should be as close to equality WITH RESPECT TO authority as possible. Partners can agree to or grow into any one of a multitude of arrangements concerning the dispersion of authority in the partnerships, which means we should be careful in generalizing. Each partnership makes its own arrangements and what arrangements it makes is the partnerhip's business and no one else's. The norm in a society will be determined by the general arrangement made by a majority of partnereships. In any case, I think one has to be careful when generalizing on these matters. Nowadays roles between the sexes are changing and what the norm will become is hard to say. When it comes to the relations between the sexes, I think that both hardwiring and socialization are factors and no one knows enough to predict what will happen -- although one may speculate as a game.
Jim on March 12, 2011:
"Our mothers also play a much bigger role in shaping our personality than our fathers. Why? Because most of our personality is formed in the first few years of our lives and with whom do we have closest contact in that period? Yep, you guessed it: our mothers."
This is something that depends on individual upbringings and households.
As for "most" of our personality being formed "in the first few years of our lives," I'm not certain of that, either. I don't know if the first few years determine what kind of character an adult will have. Sounds like something else that can depend on individual situations.
Also, while modern western culture may celebrate femininity as "more precious," I wouldn't say that femininity is celebrated as "superior."
Overall, though, I thought you made some interesting points. Nicely written article.
Patrick on March 11, 2011:
"Those who seek to impose FS upon the world are not evil; they are simply either in too much pain to listen to the pleas of their conscience, lacking in conscience, or both."
Wow, congratulations Sir! That's quite an analysis and might be the most mature and intelligent thing ever said on this matter.
It's also a thought that occurred to me a few days ago. I thought that maybe I should have compassion for the ideological female supremacists. I think you're right that if you look beneath the icy exterior of even the most seemingly self assured female supremacist, there is an emotional legacy of humiliation, disenfranchisement, and even dehumanization, that has been inflicted on women.
They want to fight back now, but their enemy is largely extinct. Dead and gone. Now, with no one to fight, they have nobody on which to unleash their fury, except the symbol of their legacy - modern men and young boys.
"To stop this movement, the quickest method may be to publicly criticize its proponents, but criticizing its proponents is impermanent; to truly end the concept of nonconsensual female supremacy once and for all, we must heal the wounds of its proponents and take action to make sure that wounds of that variety are never inflicted upon anyone else;"
More sage advice. It's also something I have tried to impart to female supremacists, although in the heat of argument, I am often more confrontational in pointing out their hypocrisy.
I agree that we need to heal those wounds that many women, evidently, still feel. I'm not sure how to do that, though. We can't turn back the clock. I do realize there are still elements of patriarchy embedded in our culture, in our language, our social customs. Maybe exorcising those elements is a good place to start.
Some have expressed the idea that equality is not possible until men have felt the same oppression as women, then maybe we can move to a truly egalitarian age. Really? That would violate the second part of your prescription - to make sure it never happens to somebody else.
Very thought provoking words, Ben. Thank you for your much needed input to this discussion.
Rusty on March 07, 2011:
In my first comment to you, I agreed with your definition of "female supremacy" (FS) as "the notion that women are superior to men and that they should be the 'ruling gender' so to speak and that men should take some kind of second place and answer to them." After reading again your article and subsequent comments, I would further classify FS, borrowing largely, but not entirely, from your views.
To begin with, I would define "institutional female supremacy" as that FS that does not agree with the principle of equality of rights and equality of opportunity between the sexes but believes that women should have special rights advantageous to them. Institutional FS believes that "women are inherently superior to men and society should be organized such that men are subjugated to them." Institutional FS seeks advantages to women in politics, in law, in education, and in other public institutions. It is clear that you oppose institutional FS, as do I. A synonym for institutional FS would be public FS.
At the other end of the scale is individual, personal, or private FS. Personal FS is consensual and does not seek to institutionalize its beliefs, that is, project them onto public life, or make FS a political movement. It is clear to me that you endorse this kind of FS for yourself and other individuals who consent to it. Personal FS involves a woman and a man agreeing (1) that she is superior to him and that he is subordinate to her and (2) that she will exercise authority over him while he accepts her authority.
A man may submit to the woman or he may defer to her. I think that when most people think of personal FS, they think of the man submitting. I would call this submission FS. By "submission FS" I mean an agreement between a woman and a man wherein he hands over to the woman his independence and autonomy and she assumes a corresponding authority over him. For such and such a period of time (which might be 24/7 or not) and in such and such areas of life (which might be all or some), the woman commands and the man obeys.
At the other end of the scale, the man does not "submit" (as just described) to the woman but defers to her judgment and wishes, while largely retaining his independence and autonomy. The two may agree, for example, that if a decision is to be made affecting them both, they discuss the matter as equals -- having equal input and consideration, but if they cannot come to agreement, her judgment prevails. This kind of FS might be called "deferential FS" and it would be a 24/7 non-BDSM practice (although occassional BDSM practices would not be ruled out). I think that personal, deferential FS is important to consider (more so than submission FS which attracts few), because it is likely to become more common in what some call "the coming American Matriarchy." In 2008 the average American woman became more educated than the average man, and the educational gap continues to increase. Because of this educational advantage to women, it seems likely the average woman will eventually out earn the average man. The number of marriages or relationships in which the woman is the chief earner is likely to increase. Most of the managers of the future are likely to be women who have developed the "habit of command" while most men will get used to being subordinate to a woman manager and answering to them. All of this argues for an increase in the percentage of marriages and relationships that are instances of personal, deferential FS. It may be that personal, deferential FS arrangements will be become the norm! A lot depends on how much that the way women and men relate to one another is due to hard-wiring versus socialization.
The expression “personal, deferential female supremacy” is awkward. In its place, I would prefer the expression “female led relationship.” Unfortunately, that expression seems to have been hijacked by the “submission" people