The Female Supremacy Theory

I read an excerpt from a treatise on "female supremacy with consensual male slavery" on one of the blogs a while ago. I regret that I did not keep the source so that I could reference it here. If I find it, I will update this post. This treatise by the unnamed author is well written in content, style, and grammar. It promotes "absolute power" of female over male. I would love to argue many of the issues, but it would take more than a lifetime to do so, assuming that the author and I were able to give it all that attention.

I have dealt with the female supremacy subject in my blog, and dismissed it as a benign fantasy among a small number of advocates. I love to submit to females under some circumstances. As to submitting to superior humans of any race, gender, religion, or any other un-earned trait, consider me a revolutionary and a guerilla: I will fight to the death to maintain my freedom, and take any of the so-called superiors with me in the process. We need to remain vigilant in our well-established society to disallow this sort of idea to pervert us. No amount of consensual slavery by a few should become the norm for those who don’t see it that way.

Since I must limit my comments to a reasonable size, I will present only some basic issues that in turn should refute many of the unknown author’s assumptions, assertions, and arguments.

First I present the author’s use of the word, “absolute” to mean that females would have absolute power over males. People use this word trivially, perverting it to mean “without a doubt”, “really”, “no kidding”, etc. Squeeze a person who uses the word to define its meaning, and he or she will admit that the meaning was not really "absolute," assuming that they can actually define the word.

Second, I grant that the author of this treatise may know the meaning of "absolute," and intended to use it in its proper meaning. However, the human mind is incapable of doing justice to the word, for in our existence there are no absolutes. The word is as troublesome as "infinity." We can define both in terms of other words, but will never be able to experience their meaning. Given the above, using "absolute" to define inter-personal power exchange is, at best, limited, and more likely trivial.

Human society did not evolve at the stroke of one’s pen or keyboard. It is arrogant to assume that any one person has the answer to what ails us in the sociological realm. There have been despots who did that, and none are alive today. Imposing spiritual aspects attempts to re-create today’s ills caused by religion taken too seriously. The idea of female supremacy is an excellent example.

A complex issue cannot be presented and accepted simply by writing a few or a few thousand words about it. Yet, if one tries to write more, as in this case, one assertion will begin to refute the other, and the theory will go nowhere. Regardless of how thorough this treatise may be, the more said about it, the less chance there is of it being cohesive and without refute. There are holes. For example, the author does not deal with the following issues: children, siblings, parents and more distant relatives, etc. Then there is the matter of skipping over education, inheritance, medical care, old age, tort, and issues of national or regional defense. I don’t assume that when superior beings are in charge, all this will go away, for these superiour beings will create their own issues. Think of Greek mythology.

I would look forward to reading the whole treatise (if I can find it again), but only as I would read a novel. Perhaps the author meant to present it as such, and we have gone to a lot of trouble to figure that out. As a novel I have no problem with it. As a realistic proposition, it would not get past day one in implementation. As a neat fantasy among like-minded people who play with it, it may work until one or the other gets tired of the game.