Friday, August 8, 2008

Getting Really Serious ...

Female Supremacy Again

The idea keeps popping up in expected places. I was re-reading old posts of Katherine West. There is some controversy about her legitimacy as a dominant female. It has been suggested that she is anything but a female. Be that as it may, her writing has a depth that captures my imagination. From time to time she presents some captivating monologue and dialogue.

In one post she proposed the desirability of a matriarchal approach to leadership in the highest places. No, not the Pope, she was talking Hillary. Political views are as whimsical as D/S, so I would not care to argue the merits of her beliefs as much as I disagree with her on this particular issue. I give her my admiration, however, for she stated that (Friday, August 26, 2005) she lets her slave husband vote his conscience, as opposed to telling him how to vote.

In the Female Supremacy Realm all is not as it has been expected. Part of the reason is that when some segment of society assumes supremacy, they become overly full of themselves, and tend to anger not just the opposition, but also many of the supporters of the faith. A case in point is on-going revolt in the Clinton camp, and the wholesale abandonment of Mr. Obama upon his repeated success with putting his feet in his mouth. Blunders are not restricted along political or D/S affiliation. We are all capable of doing that. Just that, as I said earlier, me must not succumb to becoming too full of ourselves.

I have lived this mistake repeatedly in my life. Not that I consider myself stupid, but from time to time I become myopic. It takes another person with wider vision to gently set me straight. I become humbled. For a while.

In my currently humbled opinion I truly believe that a matriarchal leadership can be as good or better than the good-old-boy leadership that we have now. I also believe just as strongly that females can mess up a society just as badly as males have. Just think of the fallout of the feminist movement starting in the seventies. Talk about unintended consequences!

The Goddess Syndrome

I will try to titillate you on a lighter note. I am not an advocate of monotheism or the other. For any argument that I propose for one or the other, hundreds or thousands of counter arguments will be proposed. As we know, it is futile to argue beliefs and feelings as opposed to observables and facts. Given that, I have a jaundiced view of any person claiming to be God. Same goes for Goddess. The reason is, only God or Goddess would know what it is to be one, and I have not met one lately.

I may relax my view if the same person claims to be "A God" or "A Goddess". Now we are dealing with more or lesser supreme beings, so I will give the deluded person a break. He or she may believe whatever, as long as I am not expected to worship because of his or her belief.

At this point I know that I may be tried and sentenced [in absentia] as a heretic by the Female Supremacy advocates. They will say, “Goddess, yes, God, no.”

I will give you all a break and accept this definition of a goddess: “A woman whose great charm and beauty arouses adoration.” There is no mystique, no supreme being, no supernatural (godly) powers. Just a whimsical position either assumed or granted, depending on the perspective of the relationship. Of course, we are now back to D/S as a context of discussion. I like this interpretation, because it applies to individuals, not to gender or group. I love to submit to my wife. She is no supreme being, but that does not stop me from doing anything for her. She can ask, request, or command, and the result is the same. But my devotion is not based on her supremacy. It is based on mutual love, respect, and commitment. It is also a game that must be suspended from time to time to deal with harsh reality.

5 comments:

Miss AJ said...

The goddess thing really irritates me. I had a lecturer recently that referred to every woman in the room as a goddess. It really devalued the term.

I'm not so happy with the definition you have given either. Is that all a goddess is - someone with fantastic charm and beauty? I'd like to think that a goddess is much, much more than this. I'd rather be a crone if a goddess is reduced to such superficial affects.

Susan's Pet said...

I admit that I am not too thrilled with the adequacy of the definition I gave. I could write a book about it. In this case I needed to muzzle my verbosity. The definition came from Merriam-Webster, and I did make a mistake. The original was, "a woman whose great charm or beauty arouses adoration." It appears that I inadvertantly changed "or" in the orginal to "and". Shows you where my mind is...

Seriously, I agree with you. But this whole post is tongue-in-cheek. What does not come through is what I have said repeatedly, "It's not what you have, but what you do with it." If you behave a goddess, you may just be one!

About being a crone, I practice kindness, and would not call anyone that. Just as I would not call anyone goddess, although the two terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive in the logical sense.

I appreciate your comment. Your presentation of the well-meaning lecturer reminds me of a teacher of one of my children. In his class every child was special. Even my eigh-year old was not fooled by that.

Miss AJ said...

You don't need to practise kindness crones are very powerful women. They are women who have gone beyond the point of submission to the expectations of society.

Well tongue-in-cheek I just might be a Goddess, in real life I do have a degree of charm. ;-)

Urmel said...

I admire your patience with this part of our society.
I fear it is all too easy to slip from D/s into some form of Chauvinism.
You will certainly remember my rant on female supremacy.

And revolutions that devour their own kids are also common.

When I saw this, I simply stopped worrying all this.

Susan's Pet said...

Holy cow, Urmel! I know I have balls, but not the size of yours. Your "rent on female supremacy" certainly says it to the point. I especially like your emphasized statement, "The right to dominate must be earned."

I give a little slack here for a couple of reasons that I can't detail for lack of space. Sometimes I want to be dominated regardless of the circumstances, and it is entirely my choice (and entirely my fault if stuff happens as a result). You are still right, but I take my chances. The other reason is that we need to nurture budding dominant females. Education that is basic to being a whole civilized human does not always come free early in life. You can see this in the sub-literate forums all around. Intelligence is not learned, but inherited. So, I give an intelligent human a chance to be what they can be. An intelligent female will transcend the sexual hype and do what must be done within consensual deals. I am all for that.

We both love women, and want to serve them. It is impossible to serve them all, so we need to choose one at a time. I am ready to serve the one I have completely. But then, she is an intelligent, caring, loving human female, so why should not I serve her?

About all the other women out there? I would love to have the opportunity to serve or refuse, but we have only one life to live, so that will not happen.