Sunday, 29 July 2007

E is for Eclectic: Why Female Gender Supremacy is Ignorant Crap, part 1 of 87

E is for Eclectic: Why Female Gender Supremacy is Ignorant Crap, part 1 of 87

An excellent post detailing why female supremacy (or any other gender supremacy in BDSM really) sucks hairy donkey gonads -- excuse me, licks the pristine vulva of a queen goddess -- er

really stinks:
I try to ignore it, believe me, but this shit is everywhere.

Why bother? Somebody has to. If the intelligent, thinking female doms and male submissives keep ignoring this crap and not addressing it head on, it will never get addressed. Everybody else is too busy laughing their asses off at such ridiculous statements, when they aren't in stitches or up in arms over male supremacy in Gor. Or when they aren't writing all female doms and male submissives off as fucking nutters.

....This is embarrassing, people. Embarrassing! It's like attending a University science school that has a small group of religious zealots preaching Creation Science with megaphones. Imagine them getting all the press attention, them pretending that of course, all of the University believed and preached Creation Science. Not only would I be mortified, but I'd eventually have to look up from my legitmate lab work and say something.

....Being a dominant woman or a submissive man is a sexual kink. You can make a sexual kink into a lifestyle, if you like, or you can keep it for sex play, but you are deluded if you try to make the whole rest of the fucking world fit your own sexual kink. Not to mention making yourself look very, very silly in the process.

"Ah, I'm kinky turned on by imagining submitting to a woman, therefore this is the One True Way and all men should be submitting to all women all the time." 'cause god knows, you couldn't be like specially perverted or something.

....What the fuck do my perversions have to do with the real world? I am now going to use my perversion to believe that the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, that dinosaurs lived at the same time as mankind and that all women want to hurt men and all men want to be hurt 24/7.
Right on, E.

The bizarre thing to me is when people say "this is what women are and this is what men are, and that's that" and then claim "it's my belief":
Why is one person's point of view so unacceptable to others? If she believes in Female Supremacy - than so be it. There is a desire for men to openly submit to the leadership and decision-making prowess of women. I'm one man who is all for it.
Basic logic for those who slept through it in college (and I don't blame you if you did, it's boring shit. What I do blame you for is being unable to figure this out for yourself):

If you assert that all A's are B's, you're asserting that no A is not a B.

Thus if you assert that all men are submissive and all women dominant, you ALSO (it's magic how this works!) assert that
  • No man is not submissive. (Which is broader than, but also includes, "no man is dominant.")
  • No woman is not dominant. (Which is again broader than, but also includes, "no woman is submissive.)
If you assert that (or the related "Men should submit to women"), you're no longer making a statement about you yourself and what you like. You're being prescriptive. You're telling others how to live their lives, how to set up their relationships, and how to fuck.

There is no cute little backdoor by which you can escape saying you're for anyone living as she likes if your whole framework for looking at the world involves all men doing one thing and all women another.

[sarcasm] Though perhaps people this incapable of using their own reason do need to be governed for the sake of the health/sanity of the rest of us humans. [/sarcasm]

PLEASE EXCUSE ME FOR NOT VOLUNTEERING.

(and don't even get me started on the blazing heterocentrism of role-by-gender approaches. I guess, being bi, I have to co-own the harem of slaves in Femdom Utopia with another woman rather than owning her too, or something.)

29 comments:

Myca said...

*grin* Okay, now take that, switch the genders, and multiply by about a bajillion and you'll have how I feel about the 'males are naturally dominant, women are naturally submissive' folk.

I mean, Christ, as if BDSM didn't get enough shit already, you know?

belledame222 said...

You can make a sexual kink into a lifestyle, if you like, or you can keep it for sex play, but you are deluded if you try to make the whole rest of the fucking world fit your own sexual kink.

Yep!

and off what myca said: well, and I think that, as with certain of the more erm fringey brands of feminism (*koff*), the justification, although of course never articulated clearly as such because clear communication, who wants -that-, with the femsupremacy thing, is:

o, our fucked up fantasy worldview is so SMALL in comparison to the rest of the world's fucked up fantasy worldview! we're a teeny tiny minority! you should accept on face value that we're totally harmless even if we don't seem to be able to disinguish fantasy from reality, or you from me, or...

which, no. Particularly when it comes to this shit. You're creating a small world of your own within a relationship or even a scene: and yes, you can do damage if you can't tell the difference between what makes -you- tick and consensus reality or any other one person's reality, particularly the person at your feet who's opened hirself up to you. It doesn't matter if it never gets installed into federal law; it's enough.

and yes, it does tend to produce kind of Ren Faire vicarious cringing in me, but well i suppose that's my problem. be as geeky as you want to be; just for the luvvaGod, BOUNDARIES, people!

belledame222 said...

off topic: omg, there really IS a nigel!!...

Trinity said...

well, and one thing that really bugs me about the femsupremacy thing is i get the impression it's commonly sold by pros. so i worry that a lot of men who are too scared to wander into the larger Scene and get a clue, well, learn that this is what wanting a dominant woman means and is about.

and also that it gets presented to women who want to try domination without pain as what you do. i know when i first was looking for resources, I found a lot of websites claiming that most women who want to dominate men consider SM a fetish, something pushy bottoms do that's too sexual, too gritty, insufficiently prim.

(Didn't suit me well at all, I wanted the pain and the blood and the tears and the gut-groaning. and not in the context of punishment, which so many people seem to use to make beatings palatable. in the Goddessdamned context of HI MY CUNT IS HUNGRY THANK YOU)

and a lot of what I ran into were those sites. and they're all about training a man to serve, all about the idea that most men think they shouldn't but will fall into it (because, of course, while a lady (ugh, I'm no fucking LADY *belches loudly*) has a brain, a man has a cock and testosterone poisoning.)

and, y'know, it's all very sexist and distasteful to me but sure, i could see where hardcore SM would indeed put off some women who'd like service with a smile and to have fun with some sensual rope and whatnot.

so it worries me a bit that, well, not only the men but some more sensualist top women who are scared of OMG SADOMASOCHISM will get sold this bill of goods, which is actually much more pernicious because a lot of people DO assert this is for everybody.

Myca said...

Right, exactly. The thing is that this is rank gender essentialism, and gender essentialism doesn't work for anyone. It certainly doesn't work for the gender being told that they're supposed to be submissive/weak/etc, but it doesn't work for the gender being told that they must be dominant/in control/etc., either.

Myca said...

Which, BTW, is my whole point on why feminism is good for men, but I digress . . .

Elizabeth said...

I love you people. :)

Thanks for the link. I'm not the ranty sort of blogger, more a look where I can find pockets of sweetness and light to talk about, but this shit has just got to stop.

The blog I linked to is a major google gateway to people finding info on d/s. Scene or lifestyle people already know where to go...the *rest* of the world finds that or domination for money.

Does it scare people away, like Trinity says? Of course it does. (stealing part 2 or 6 or 8 of 87 for a special preview here ;) )...I've been a sexually oriented this way my entire life, online since the early 90's, and I *just* finally peeked my head up in the last year.

I'd look around, run into Elise Sutton, say "these people are fucking crazy" and go back to doing whatever else I was doing online with sane people, that had nothing to do with my sexual orientation.

(this would also be my reaction when running into frothing pockets of rad fem, but I'm not qualified to rant on that so I'll leave that to you guys....I just back away slowly, keeping one eye on the exit)

*pouts*

I don't know why people make it this hard. This would all be just fun if they didn't crap it up. I like fun.

Anyway, thanks again. Belle or Myca, if you feel up to rehashing a bit of your comments over at my place, that would be excellent. The women are going to save this (I mean, as if it could actually be saved). Most of the comments on this subject attributed to women I don't believe *come* from women. The original quote in my piece? I'd bet ten thousand real dollars it was written by a man, and I'm pretty sure I know which one, and what he was doing with his left hand while typing with his right.

On another blog I'd apologize for the length of my comment. Grin.

E

Trinity said...

"I'd bet ten thousand real dollars it was written by a man, and I'm pretty sure I know which one, and what he was doing with his left hand while typing with his right."

LOL! Yeah, I bet. Though I've met some "femdoms" who do profess this stuff -- which, like I said at yr spot, is part of why the term really doesn't resonate with me. And part of why I never joined Club Fem chapters, even though I drool at the idea of occasionally attending parties that are solely F/m.

Whiiiiiine.

Trinity said...

"Does it scare people away, like Trinity says? Of course it does."

Actually I found it as a teenager and was almost suckered in by it. Because a lot of it says "here is how to convince a vanilla man to submit to you." And as a teen I had no idea that perverts are actually common -- I figured I was one in a million, so I'd never find anyone.

So the idea that by subtle seduction I could MAKE a submissive person -- well, it creeped me out because it didn't sound very consensual, but it attracted me because it seemed much more likely than a painslut falling into my lap.

belledame222 said...

See, I love the -idea- of "make 'em bend to my will," in my dark little fantasy heart. And, you know, online we-can't-tell-fantasy-from-reality, well, whatever...but, yeah, again: it just strikes me as chronic fandom/Ren Faire syndrome, with the additional problem of hello, ___ism.

maymay said...

:) This. Post. Rocked.

Also, regarding professional femdominfuckupperas (it's a word), Elise Sutton might top your list for the gender superiority stuff, but something tells me you were already well aware of that.

Also, I am in love with your truth table logic. I might just have to try it myself some day.

Cassandra Says said...

You know, this is one of my pet hates on the Net, this tendency of people to say things that, if the person really believed them, would CLEARLY be a generalizing thing that would proscribe behavior, and then turn around and say "but you can't disagree with me or tell me I'm wrong, because it's just my opinion!". Drives me nuts.

Words mean things, people. You don't get to cop out of the meaning of your words because they're an "opinion".

Cassandra Says said...

Yep to Myca, particularly since the male supremacy folks tend to be so very in-your-face about it. And then there's Belle's point...

"and yes, it does tend to produce kind of Ren Faire vicarious cringing in me, but well i suppose that's my problem. be as geeky as you want to be; just for the luvvaGod, BOUNDARIES, people! "

I tend to react the same way.

"Umm, yeah, thanks for sharing and all...oh will you look at the time! Gotta go now!'.

Trinity said...

"See, I love the -idea- of "make 'em bend to my will," in my dark little fantasy heart."

Oh, me too, but I was actually thinking I couldn't find partners unless I used trickery and guile, and that wasn't something I wanted to really do.

Also bending to my will in fantasy involves lots of beatings until people break, which isn't the best way to actually get dates.

Cassandra Says said...

Now you've made me curious. What DO gender-role-fixated kink communities have to say about non-hetero folks? Do they just ignore them/pretend they don't exist?

I've always found both versions of the roles based on gender ideology so offputting that I've never stuck around them long enough to see if they'd try to tell me I don't exist.

Trinity said...

"Now you've made me curious. What DO gender-role-fixated kink communities have to say about non-hetero folks?"

I don't remember them ever saying anything at all. I think they just live out their days in hetero bubbleland.

Kramnik said...

There is no cute little backdoor by which you can escape saying you're for anyone living as she likes if your whole framework for looking at the world involves all men doing one thing and all women another.

Except there is. If you read any theory or philosophy these days, no one is making categorical a priori statements like this; arguments are more sophisticated than Aristolelian squares of opposition. It is very rare that a female supremacist is actually making a categorical empirical claim (though that could be said of cultural feminists, who simply set their definiton of superiority as "having female biological capacities and historically female value-orientation"). Rather usually an explicit normative claim is being made about political philosophy or cognitive science, e.g., "The people who have screwed things up historically have been men; women would do much better if women as a group had power; the reason why is that women, on average, make better decisions by not using linear-thinking and by preferring consensus to majority-rule systems of decision-process." So rarely do you get someone making the flat, two-dimensional claim that all men are x and all women are not x (and if reality appears different, then all men who do not appear x are latently x and all women who do not appeat not x are latently not x; rather you get the claim that it is justified to push society toward the utopian ideal of women ruling over men, because it benefits the greater good and makes the worst-off better off than they would be absent female supremacy (i.e., wars, famine, capitalism, etc.)

Now, I'm not a female supremacist, but they tend -- in my experience -- to have more sophisticated arguments than the above post gives them credit for.

Kramnik said...

In other words, the getting off part is justified by the rightness of the philosophy: to the extent the getting off part is a means to realizing the utopian ideal, it is a justifiable means.

(And, again, this isn't my viewpoint.)

Richard said...

Honestly, the blog in question has been a form of masturbation for the author and readers for quite some time. That he writes with a bogus lucidity seems to attract an audience as well.

Female supremacy in a literal sense is mostly employed by telephone dominatrices. And to a lesser degree by horny men. Some longtime BDSM writers like Laura Goodwin use it as an antipatriarchal metaphor without really meaning political or social gender inferiority.

If men didn't find it a way of having orgasms or justifying in a very unnecessary way their desires to be submissive and be hurt it would go away in a flash.

Trinity said...

"If men didn't find it a way of having orgasms or justifying in a very unnecessary way their desires to be submissive and be hurt it would go away in a flash."

So it's always seemed to me, too.

And I prefer people who don't think they need justification.

Hence my preference for honest masochists over men who "need corporal punishment."

Kramnik said...

So it's always seemed to me, too.

That's a rather bogus response. Most of these people do not hold the literal viewpoint you assign to them, and not all of them are just doing it to get off; they sincerely believe it. You can't wish the validity of people's opinions away by presuming they have bad faith. That's just intolerant. You don't have to agree, but where do you get off assigning strawmen to people and then condescending to them on the basis of something they don't actually believe? That's just rude.

Kramnik said...

Oh, and the more sophisticaed argument I borrowed from a blogger names Becky, whose site was hacked into and no longer exists. She's not a man who just likes to wank; she's a woman who is a lifestyle.

You can't just dismiss these people; they exist.

Kramnik said...

And I prefer people who don't think they need justification.

That is crazy. It is not about "needing" justification.

It's just about people being able to respond to others in ordinary discourse. Gay people don't need to justify themselves to straights, but queer theory exists, anyway. Pathologizing people who engage in the same quest for self-definition as anyone else, and use the same philosophical tools all human beings do to accomplish that, is just wrong. And this site purports to be against such judgmental attitudes.

Trinity said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trinity said...

"That is crazy. It is not about "needing" justification."

Whatever.

I prefer people who like beatings and can ask for them without setting up some weird thing whereby there has to be an excuse for it.

I do think some people try corporal punishment in a D/s dynamic and wouldn't be surprised if some people make it work. But for a lot of people who want both D/s and corporal, the submissive often ends up misbehaving to get the beatings.

Not something I like. I prefer someone who can honestly say to me "Sir, I really want a beating now." That's lovely. Confusing the D/s by giving a *good* sensation for *bad( behavior is, well, not the best idea in my own experience.

If it works for you and the Mistress I strongly suspect you don't actually have, go for it.

But that doesn't mean I prefer it, or that I choose people who are confused bwtween sexual fantasy about punishment and desire for real D/s.

Those folks are more trouble than they're worth. I've dated one.

Kramnik said...

I prefer people who like beatings and can ask for them without setting up some weird thing whereby there has to be an excuse for it.

Here we go with the "weird" label! I thought labeling others as weird or nasty was no good?

Justification/excuse, that's not what these people are doing. I don't have a vocabulary to explain why I like films because otherwise I wouldn't feel comfortable seeing films; I have it because I'm really into film, including talking about it! I don't like wine snobs, but I don't think their more extensive knowledge of the "wine discourse" is proof they don't really like wine and the whole thing's bogus. They like participating in the "wine community" and being a "wine person," too.

(And, I kind of find them weird, too, just so you know.)

Trinity said...

"Here we go with the "weird" label! I thought labeling others as weird or nasty was no good?"

I didn't label them. I labeled that setup. I was talking about my own preferences. For me, that's convoluted and ridiculous. If I want to hurt someone consensually I'm just going to go ahead and DO it.

Kramnik said...

I was talking about my own preferences.

So you do have vocabulary to discuss what you prefer. As do other people.

Anonymous said...

Kenyan
Wow. I'm definitely going to prefer being a testosterone pumped misogynist than be the 'ideal man'(Mangina). If a woman thinks I would do such crap she should just move along rather than try to shame me to bend to her will. Good day.