M.Lorr, of the Female Supremacy blog asserts that conventional men do not develop intimate communication skills and therefore, grow up feeling incomplete and lonely from emotional starvation. Men miss the connection they had with their moms in the early years of their lives. They see women as an extension of their mothers and look for women to fill that role, But when the majority of women withhold the love, nurturing and attention that they so desperately crave, they get filled with seething anger. She goes further to assert that some think they can force intimacy through manipulation and patriarchal aggression such as rape, assault, terrorism, and oppression.
Up until just recently, I rejected the term FEMALE SUPREMACY as nothing more than a satirical paradox. It simply seemed ridiculous because Patriarchy has dominated every culture since the beginning of time, accept for Amazonian Greek mythology. As such, patriarchal dominance has destroyed civilizations, cultures, species and now the planet. When I first became aware of the term "female supremacy", I thought it was humorously satirical due to it's mere improbability. However, the philosophical doctrine, of love, peace, compassion, empathy, sensitivity, nurturing, development is the prevalent theme underlying the definition of female supremacy. Hence, this planet needs healing from the thousands of years of continuous destruction from Patriarchal dominance.
M. Lorr further asserts that patriarchy encourages and fosters aggression and terrorism. While, Female supremacy fosters growth, unity and empowerment. Women make better managers and planners because we are more diplomatic, empathetic, intuitive and are emotionally stronger. We should leave the hard labor to the men since they are built for labor anyway. Sure there will be a few bad female seeds here and there, but that is nothing compared to the magnitude of destruction and oppression patriarchy has caused.
Although, I completely agree with her assertions, I am not clear how we can over come patriarchal dominance. Men will destroy the world before they allow their power to be stripped away. In fact, they use killing and destruction as a tool to wield power. Consequently, women create life as men destroy it. One way to reverse that dynamic is to rear your boys like you reared your girls. However, institutional gender development can intercede, and re-enforced patriarchal dominance amongst male and female children. There by leaving dominant women in the minority against the powerful traditionalist. Again, I am not sure what the answer is to this, but I hope to discover it in my lifetime. Until then, I will continue to muse about this concept. I hope this new era of the masculine submissive, metrosexual, beta male, and or the submale will evolve the current state of play.
7 comments:
Unfortunately, while the notion of Female Supremacy= love, peace, all non-violent things, while patriarchy= violence, I don't really think the world, or history, is at all so simple.
I've written a few blog posts about this. Personally, I believe that dominant women are more like dominant men than they are like non-dominant women.
Consider Queen Elizabeth of GB, Margaret Thatcher, or Evita Peron. Or Boedica (sp?).
These were hardly non-violent women.
The stereotype of always-wise, peaceful women is simply untrue.
-saratoga
Saratoga,
Please review history. Because you are completely incorrect regarding Elizabeth I, Eva Peron and Benazir Bhutto. They were exactly the type of leadership that I am speaking about. They worked for the benifit of the people, defended their country and the people vigorously. However, you are correct about Margerett Thatcher, she beleived in free market capitalism which starved the poor in Great Brittan.
Elizabeth was dedicated to her country in a way few monarchs had been or have been since. Elizabeth had the mind of a political genius and nurtured her country through careful leadership and by choosing capable men to assist her, such as Sir William Cecil and Sir Francis Walsingham. Elizabeth was a determined woman, but she was not obstinate. She listened to the advice of those around her, and would change a policy if it was unpopular with the aristocracy. In appearance she was extravagant, in behaviour sometimes flippant and frivolous, but her approach to politics was serious, conservative, and cautious. When she ascended the throne in 1558, England was an impoverished country torn apart by religious squabbles. When she died at Richmond Palace on the 24th March 1603, England was one of the most powerful and prosperous countries in the world. She never started a war, she fought off Spain. She did kill her half sister but that was personal.
Eva Peron was the Elenor Rossevelt of Argentina. She was the type of Superior Female leadership that I refer to. She never waivered in champion the rights of the poor. She understood that no country can be great if the people are starving and dying. She is most famous for running the labor and health minstries, championing women's sufferage, and speaking on behalf of unions, labor rights and the poor. Eva Peron went up against military and elite. Had she of not died of cancer she would have become the VP of Argintina and continued to represent the people. Her passion and aggressive defense for the people against the military regime and the elite was unwavering; like a mother protecting her cubs.
Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakastan was killed for never waivering on nonviolent advocation of human rights, womans sufferage, poverty issues and anti-war.
There are many other Women who were and are presidents of nations that have been very effect, and did not sell out the country for the financial interest of the rich, did not create wars and did not starve the poor. As a matter of fact most worked towards the same themes of common empathetic and altuistic goals for human rights, protecting the poor, anti-war, and improving working standards, living conditions of the country. One who is very well know for her success and popularity as s two term president of Ireland was President Mary McAleese, president of Ireland. Here presidency's theme was building bridges.Does that sound familiar? The people loved her because she considered the well being the people not the interest groups. Her job approval was so high the opposing party chose not to bear the cost of running against her for re-election. She is exactly what I am referring to when a woman leads. As a matter of fact she was the first woman to win the presidency consecutively. Therefore, Ireland got it right.
The commonality amongs these women is that they were all highly educated, and supper intelligent. Unlike Palin, these women were accomplished Alpha Females who gave themselves and their lives for the uplift and betterment of their country. To know suffage helps one to not waver. As such they used their talents to improve the conditions of the people instead of selling out. There are far less female presidents that were warmongers than peace makers. I know you are probably going to mention Isreal's first PM.
BCR, I noticed your comment on my blog and stopped over to visit yours. Great profile, and this post of yours is too true.
Would love to stay & chat, but I have a ton of snow to shovel here in the Rockies. Hope it is a perfect day for you, and go ahead... indulge in a little more 'fabulous male body' moments. But watch that oatmeal.
LOL!
Men have went to war for women. White Feather campaign, innumerable letters shaming their honeys to fight for them during too many wars to count, the women of Sparta who would kill a son who was a coward - well, I could go on.
I'm afraid I don't give females a pass. They mostly have raised the children, "hand that rocks the cradle" and all that. That pick consistently dangerous and daring men over boring if stable and peaceful chumps all the time. Women are over half the people in the world, and while they may not have ever explictly wielded power to the degree of a *very few as a percentage * men, they have wielded enormous power behind the scenes and helped to very much create the societies they lived in. Today they explictly can wield power all the while getting a pass based on their genitalia from ever having to be responsible for their actions. I'd say overall, your average woman has more power than the average man - and yet women are as a group, hypergamous and prefer to give their "love" and "sex" only to the most socially dominant of males. So yes, alot of male status games are really games for the benefit of women.
A world explictly run by women a better place? Please. Don't make me laugh. Individual men and women can be very admireable people but as far as groups and sexes most people suck.
Clarence
Clarence,
Actually Men have gone to war to obtain control. That control could include the attention of women. But NO wars in recorded history have been solely for women. The reason is that in Patriarchal societies the woman's needs are rarely considered. She will be forced, restrained and controlled growing up and it typically continues into adulthood. Until she begins to subscribe to her own oppression. Little girls who grow up playing sports are often the exception to the rule.
Secondly, men have used women for their pleasure, since the beginning of time. Very few women can wield power on this planet. Women typically influence and cajole but not wield power. Women have never defined the values of a society. It is the reason women are often the gatekeepers of society because they ensure that other women follow men's rules and normative value. Why do you think that women have been brain washed into valuing themselves by birthing babies? The maternal calling is not innate, it is a conditioned programmed value. Women DON'T explicitly rule anything. Not even submissive men.
Milady:
Thank you for your kind and respectful response, but I do not agree.I think women's ability to shape their sons and their ability to shame men for both good and bad purposes have played tremendous roles in history, and I think you imagine the "average" man has gotten far more out of existing societies than he actually did. Where you are quite radical and almost certainly wrong is your denigration of the mother instinct that most women have. This is almost certainly biological as humans are biological beings and subject to the forces of evolution ESP with regards to sex, without which we would not be here to have a chat.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html?_r=1&ref=science&pagewanted=all
As you seem a caring and smart woman who does not hate men, I really do wish you the best even though I disagree with your philosophy and I think you are downright wrong about a few things. If all female supremacists -nay, if all women- were more like you present yourself the world might be a better place.
Clarence
Black Chick, your thoughts are those of someone who doesn't really understand men or men's lives, and particularly the difference between that tiny percentage of men who wield the power and the other 99.9% of us. Your theories are too self-absorbed to capture or even allow for the understanding of all the ways in which boys and men are "forced, restrained, and controlled." All of the world's wars have been fought by men who were forced or coerced into dying or killing other men and the history of man-on-man violence and torture is staggering and stomach-turning. Your superficial assumption, and that of many other women, is that there's something innately violent about men. No, it's because of the violence of men who hold the power over other men.
Those who seek empathy without giving much of their own are doomed to fail in their quest. You're smart but you're not yet wise and there are no shortcuts on that path. Keep living and learning and opening your heart.
Post a Comment