From - Sun Sep 15 17:58:28 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
Re: FW: BEER JOKE
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Advise please
Re: God/Goddess Worship (in Africa)
Re: Advise please
Re: Delay In Messages
Re: Surrender/bliss: A religious experience?
Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate
Re: Delay In Messages
Re: Delay In Messages
Re: Is all S&M sexual?
Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:08:54 -0500
From: scott rudolph
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: FW: BEER JOKE
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960913030854.006c3a54@mail.execpc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:46 AM 9/10/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>BTW, a noted beer authority recently asserted in my local Sunday paper that
>women invented beer! I forget his name right now...wish I'd clipped and
>saved that article! Don'tcha hate that?
>
>Laura Goodwin
>
>I think the beer authority you're reffering to is Michael Jackson. I am
also a home brewer; and among home brewers Michael Jackson is the most well
known and authoritative beer expert. I've heard him tell of how beer was
probably invented by women, as they have invented most forms of food
preparation.

scott
rudy@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~rudy

"Animals are my friends; and I don't eat my friends."
George Bernard Shaw

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-Id: <199609130333.UAA00422@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1430

Jonnan West wrote:
>
> Had she said 'military', Department of Defense, or even 'Those
> asses at the Pentagon' I would've agreed wholeheartedly. But she was
> speaking exclusively of Nasa and her context applied it even more
> narrowly towards exploratory and research programs as if they were
> costing us billions.

I don't want to get involved in the nitpicking, but I do have a point
to make. I don't recall Patricia referring to a particular country,
etc. This is an International list (in fact, if I'm referring to my
home, I'm referring to Canada). For all anyone knows, she was talking
about the whole world's spending on space research, etc.
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of what she originally said to
doublecheck.

This is mostly a reminder of folks that sometimes you'll have to
explain regional/cultural/country specific things to everyone else.
:) I still remember how many Americans and other folks outside Canada
I confused when bringing up the Referendum that happened here last
October, with Quebec trying to leave Canada. No one had any clue of
what was happening, even though it was HUGE, scary news in Canada.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <199609130403.VAA00458@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1147

Chase Vogelsberg wrote:
>
> >Patricia wrote:
> >It is the difference between the slash and burn mentality that has so
> >shamelessly despoiled our mother the earth who are now spending billions
> >on space flight and terraforming..coming up with real scientific ways to
> >make Mars habitable for humans after we have nothing left on Earth.
>
> Specific enough to space exploration / colonization to be pretty easy to
> see where he presumed NASA was being discussed, and not DOD / Military.
> But somehow he's being just like a man and putting words in someone's
> mouth.

Ah, there's her actual quote. I'm sorry, Chase, but there are a few
assumptions being made here. 1. That she was referring to just the
US. 2. That these were _all_ government monies regardless of the
government. The private sector also does research, as does the
scientific sector.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:05:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: feydancer@earthlink.net (Phoenix)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship (in Africa)
Message-Id: <199609130405.VAA16783@serbia.it.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>> Hmm... a quick trip to _Goddesses in World Mythology_ by Martha Ann &
>> Dorothy Myers Imel revealed a large number of African goddesses. The first
>> section is devoted entirely to them (excluding Egypt, which has its own
>> extensive section). I quit counting them around 100--which was still in the
>> "E" listings. Modern worshippers in Voudoun, Umbanda, etc. would be very
>> surprised to hear that God/dess worship was non-African!
>>
>> --Lady Phoenix
>
> I may be wrong then - I'll check it out. It was -my-
>understanding that the African 'Goddesses' would be more closely ascribed
>to the Nymphs of Greek mythology than the definition of a god or goddess
>as having dominion over an entire aspect of nature (-my- definition of a
>god or goddess as opposed to say a nymph, satyr, lamia et al. It
>generally works for me but may not be what someone else uses). I will see
>what I can find out.
> I'm completely unfamiliar with Umbanda, but I know modern Voudoun
>is a mixture of a number of african religions with christian overtones,
>at least to the best of my understanding. I only know a very few
>practicianers though (This is Indianapolis, not New Orleans - ) and
>I've found books on the subject notable for the number of times they
>contradict each other - .
> Jonnan
>
>

The African Goddesses seem (to me) similar to Goddesses in other
cultures--all the way from supreme diety/creator (Mawu, Nyame, Tamuno,
Woyengi, etc.) to dieties of specific aspects of nature (such as sea,
weather, moon, sun, stars, insects, and dieties of aspects of human life
(childbirth, fertility, death, education, agriculture, justice, etc.).

Umbanda is similar to Voudoun and comes via Brazil, along with Macumba and
Candomble. Santeria and Ifa are two more African-based syncretic religions.
All of these religions have pantheons that include powerful goddesses who
definitely have "dominion over an entire aspect of nature." One good example
is Yemanja-- "Goddess of Love and Sexuality, Water; Unhappiness; Mother and
Guardian. Goddess of saltwater and freshwater. She is the universal mother."
(from Goddesses in World Mythology)

I came across this on the Net:

"Every New Year's Eve, the wide beaches of Rio undergo an extraordinary
one-night
transformation, changing from pleasure grounds for devotees of sun and surf into
sanctuaries for believers in Umbanda, the city's largest spirit sect. As the
sun sets, millions of people come together on the sands to pay special
homage to the ruling divinity of the sea, Yemanja. Their prayers ask for
blessings in matters of love; oftentimes they are outright requests for
divine intervention. Gathered beside bonfires and candles, they swirl to the
mesmerizing beat of drums and chant hymns. The climactic moment comes at the
stroke of midnight when the worshippers rush to the water's edge and close
their prayers by casting a bouquet of roses into the sea.

I remember standing there at the edge of the ocean with Pia and the rest of
my family watching as millions of people, thousands of them women dressed in
flowing white gowns, tossed roses into the dark waters. The collective
desire to be loved was inspiring. The visual was simply breathtaking. There
was a moment of pious silence where all you could hear was the surf. The
faithful watched intently the flowers they had thrown, for if these flowers
returned to shore, that meant their prayers had fallen on deaf ears and the
new year would bring much heartache.

Pia was so taken by this moment that she commissioned a street artist to
capture it with paints. Now that painting hangs above our chimney.
Oftentimes I caught her looking at it. A look which said: if white gowns and
red roses are the means to speak to God, what splendor heaven must hold."

(http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~skypen/Pia/rio.html)

--Lady Phoenix

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: feydancer@earthlink.net (Phoenix)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <199609130415.VAA17762@serbia.it.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Jonnan West wrote (in small part):

> So the question becomes, do I, as an person already announced to
>be in conflict on some levels with the espoused views of those on this
>mailing list, have a right or a need to remain on this list against the
>notable objections of members in good standing who feel that there is a
>certain basic assumption that, females or feminine qualities, however
>defined, are intrinsically superior to males or masculine qualities, that
>should be shared by anyone actively participating in discourse on this
>list, and that those who are -not- in alignment with that assumption,
>should debate their philosophy elsewhere.
>
> If this is the consensus of the group as a whole, or of a large
>minority, then I will depart the area rather than be a source of further
>friction within the list.
>

I think as far as friction goes, you come in as small potatoes. You've been
reasonably polite (although a bit verbose). As far as I'm concerned you are
welcome to stay or go. (If you're too much of a pain, Dee-Ann will
undoubtedly kick you off anyway!) ;} My only suggestion is that a little
more listening and a little less talking would probably be appropriate.

--Lady Phoenix

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 15:03:18 +0100
From: robert and fiona forsythe
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Delay In Messages
Message-ID:

In message , Barry
Emerson Wright writes
>Friends,
>
> I've gotten no mail from FS since yesterday and I know some
>folks have posted, including myself. Is the problem with the List or my
>ISP? If anyone is getting FS messages, I would be very grateful if you
>would e-mail me and let me know.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Barry
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".
>
something's been a mess somewhere but we have no idea whether the
problem is in Canada or with our provider Demon Internet who certainly
have had problems.
--
fiona and robert forsythe

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:27:48 -0400
From: Laura Goodwin
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com, femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Surrender/bliss: A religious experience?
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960913132748.00699134@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 06:34 PM 9/12/96 -0700, jnbry@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>
>my wife
>is as religious as I am agnostic. Just before she packs our three boys into
>the minivan to take them to church sunday morning she always gives me
>instructions as to what to do while she is gone. I think it is a way cool
>contrast.

Except for the church part that sounds like my marriage. Bruce is not at
all religious in the conventional way (he was raised Jewish...happy New
Year, BTW), but says that he has religious feelings for me. I am a devout
Pagan, and am raising my children Pagan. There is no conflict on this issue
in my house, for us it's just how it's expressed.

I think what's going on is that Bruce needs a physical Goddess toward whom
he can relate in some palpable way. In our religion this is a legitimate
form of religious expression. In other religions it's characterized as
idolatry.

Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:18:54 -0500
From: falcon@sbc.mwol.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate
Message-ID:

FE>On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:44:55 -0400, Laura wrote:

FE>> I know several other D/s couples where the husband is a toilet slave, and
FE>>without exception it was always the guy's idea. These other wives and I
FE>>give each other *the look* (you women know what I mean) when ever the topic
FE>>comes up. We don't talk about despising the practice, or about the shame w
FE>>feel for agreeing to it. The subs seem to think that we just glory in our
FE>>power. They won't let themselves be aware of the pain this causes, because
FE>>their obsession is so overwhelming.

FE>I think that partly the problem is that there is a close loving
FE>relationship and this makes it very difficult for the woman.

FE>As a man who has had to pay a woman to feed me usually at the last
FE>moment I am filled with disgust at my desires and I feel I must be
FE>stupid to want to do such a thing. I have not paid excessive amounts
FE>for the woman to feed me so I would think that the women who have done
FE>it don't experience the revulsion that many women do. Quite often
FE>another woman has watched the feeding and amazingly when two women are
FE>together, rather than be embarrassed, they seem to enjoy it. They
FE>don't usually try to end it as quickly as possible but have sometimes
FE>literally rubbed my nose in it!

FE>I don't think I could suggest this practice to someone I know because
FE>of the embarrassment it would cause but I could understand how, if a
FE>woman did it to me once, I would be moved to beg desperately for her
FE>to do it again!

FE>peter

FE>Peter Saxton, from London
FE>peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

FE>___________________________________________________________________
FE>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
FE>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
FE>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".

hello peter
i guess in the usa... it seems this country is sometimes obsessed with
taboos... i would imagine in England or a lot of places in Europe...
that there are more women that would enjoy using a toilet slave... i
read in Club magazine years back exerpts from the diary of Bruno
Kahlman... who had consumed from women... one account had me in complete
envy... he was placed in a brothel for women in Holland... he performed
IBS 8 times in one day... that is immaculate body service... where he
consumed from those women and licked them clean... i would be glad if i
could consume just one a day... some people try to tell me that it is a
health risk... as a result of you consuming... have you ever experienced
any ill effects as a result...
thank you for responding for i now know of another like me
toilet slave billy


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 03:47:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: aehthex@magi.com (Lorraine Jobin)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-Id: <199609130747.DAA24850@infoweb.magi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hello again:

I'm going to try this again, sorry if you get two copies: major server
problems!! Yesterday, I got some mail from the 11th. Today, I received
mail from the 10th and about 5 hours later, the 9th! Maybe the poem will be
in there somewhere! So, please do not send for now.

Thanks, L!

Hello everyone:

Would someone be so kind as to send me a copy of this poem? The mail server
was down and I did not receive any posting for the 9th & 10th. I must have
missed some interesting posts judging from the volume and callibre of
replies. Thanks!!


>Patricia wrote-
>
>Thank you for the beautiful and haunting poem...it is one of my favorites
>as well. Here is a class example of a woman who was squashed by
>patriarchy... I can understand and this is why I subscribe to this list
>and I am trying to raise my daughter with the high ideals I see here.
>I do not want her to have to struggle as we do and hope that by the time
>she is an adult, it will be more equal or at the very least much more
>supportive of women. If not, perhaps she will be another of the catalysts.
>
>Jet
>
>>and this is for Dee Ann and Laura and Jet and Sorceress and Leather and
>>all the wonderful and wonder-filled women on this list, and to the
>>hundreds of millions of women who have been wounded, scared, altered,
>>killed by Patriachy...and those millions who have survived and thrived
>>even within the half-life that Patriarchy has allowed them..each is my
>>sister..this is a gift of a favorite poem of mine that I identify with
>>totally.
>>
>>HER KIND, by Anne Sexton
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:00:07 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate
Message-ID: <3239AF37.29C6@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am an american DOMME who practises golden showers for many reasons.
The top reason being..it turns me on. But I also use it during
training...peeing all over new sub and making him lay in room with smell
of me all over him...stewing in my juices is part of his transferring
power to me. It is so animal...marking my territory. It is so holy,
baptism in goddess worship I call it. But smells are very important
and my sub should be marked with mine.

As to drinking it....I talked to several doctor friends of mine and they
assured me that urine is filled with proteins that are good, rather than
harmful. The idea of being honored in this manner is just a very big
turn on for me. Also one of the most aggravating things in the world is
having to get up in middle of night to go pee. having sub available at
foot of bed to receive it for me..keeps me warm in middle of night.
just call me a pratical woman.

Patricia

falcon@sbc.mwol.com wrote:
>
> FE>On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:44:55 -0400, Laura wrote:
>
> FE>> I know several other D/s couples where the husband is a toilet slave, and
> FE>>without exception it was always the guy's idea. These other wives and I
> FE>>give each other *the look* (you women know what I mean) when ever the topic
> FE>>comes up. We don't talk about despising the practice, or about the shame w
> FE>>feel for agreeing to it. The subs seem to think that we just glory in our
> FE>>power. They won't let themselves be aware of the pain this causes, because
> FE>>their obsession is so overwhelming.
>
> FE>I think that partly the problem is that there is a close loving
> FE>relationship and this makes it very difficult for the woman.
>
> FE>As a man who has had to pay a woman to feed me usually at the last
> FE>moment I am filled with disgust at my desires and I feel I must be
> FE>stupid to want to do such a thing. I have not paid excessive amounts
> FE>for the woman to feed me so I would think that the women who have done
> FE>it don't experience the revulsion that many women do. Quite often
> FE>another woman has watched the feeding and amazingly when two women are
> FE>together, rather than be embarrassed, they seem to enjoy it. They
> FE>don't usually try to end it as quickly as possible but have sometimes
> FE>literally rubbed my nose in it!
>
> FE>I don't think I could suggest this practice to someone I know because
> FE>of the embarrassment it would cause but I could understand how, if a
> FE>woman did it to me once, I would be moved to beg desperately for her
> FE>to do it again!
>
> FE>peter
>
> FE>Peter Saxton, from London
> FE>peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk
>
> enaissoft.com with the subject "help".
>
> hello peter
> i guess in the usa... it seems this country is sometimes obsessed with
> taboos... i would imagine in England or a lot of places in Europe...
> that there are more women that would enjoy using a toilet slave... i
> read in Club magazine years back exerpts from the diary of Bruno
> Kahlman... who had consumed from women... one account had me in complete
> envy... he was placed in a brothel for women in Holland... he performed
> IBS 8 times in one day... that is immaculate body service... where he
> consumed from those women and licked them clean... i would be glad if i
> could consume just one a day... some people try to tell me that it is a
> health risk... as a result of you consuming... have you ever experienced
> any ill effects as a result...
> thank you for responding for i now know of another like me
> toilet slave billy
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
> For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
> mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:10:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: aehthex@magi.com (Lorraine Jobin)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Delay In Messages
Message-Id: <199609131510.LAA21604@infoweb.magi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi gang:

Well, it seems that the problem is up here in Canada. I'm just getting
caught up with my e-mail. I just received this one from yesterday sent at
3:30 p.m. Apparently, the server I use, iSTAR, mysteriously ended up having
a read-protect code inserted into their system. No one received mail for 3
days. About 250 messages trickled in on and off yesterday, in reverse
order. Kept me up all night. I have now had a grand total of 7 hours since
Wednesday the 4th. Mentally, I'm doing fine, physically, I'm banging into
walls.
I miss my submate... Well, that's enough of that! What kind of a Dom am I?
Am I in control or what? Get some sleep, missy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, that was the problem with the e-mail. Barry, fiona and robert, you
should be getting all your mail now. We Canucks are on top of it!!!!! Haha!!

Have a good weekend all,

Lorraine


>> I've gotten no mail from FS since yesterday and I know some
>>folks have posted, including myself. Is the problem with the List or my
>>ISP? If anyone is getting FS messages, I would be very grateful if you
>>would e-mail me and let me know.

>>
>>Barry
>>
>>
>something's been a mess somewhere but we have no idea whether the
>problem is in Canada or with our provider Demon Internet who certainly
>have had problems.
>--
>fiona and robert forsythe
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Delay In Messages
Message-Id: <199609131622.JAA00293@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 667

Lorraine Jobin wrote:
>
> Anyway, that was the problem with the e-mail. Barry, fiona and robert, you
> should be getting all your mail now. We Canucks are on top of it!!!!! Haha!!

Well, fortunately, the ISP I use isn't an iSTAR ISP, so the list has
been going on as usual. :) For those non-Canucks, iSTAR is a company
who has been buying up Canadian ISPs like they're candy.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:40:55 GMT
From: Peter Saxton
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Is all S&M sexual?
Message-ID: <32387182.166769574@post.demon.co.uk>

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:04:19 -0800, you wrote:

>Peter wrote...
>>
>>All I can say is that many times I have done things for women when I
>>knew that it would not lead to sex and sometimes I have done things
>>for women and felt very happy about doing them even though the woman
>>would not know that I had done them and so I could not even be
>>rewarded by them woman looking favourably towards me.
>
>
>
>Paint my house!
>
>Leather

You can't have seen my painting abilities. You'd have to be a
masochist to want me to paint your house! :-)

peter

Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk


Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 14:53:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: aehthex@magi.com (Lorraine Jobin)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate
Message-Id: <199609131853.OAA13617@infoweb.magi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

OH GODDESS, I love this list! As much as I miss my subfriend, I pick up my
e-mail and I - am - home!
Thanks Patricia, you've made my day! Hugs and kisses to all of you!

Today I will sign myself, sincerely,


Mistress Lorraine

Patricia wrote:

>I am an american DOMME who practises golden showers for many reasons.
>The top reason being..it turns me on. But I also use it during
>training...peeing all over new sub and making him lay in room with smell
>of me all over him...stewing in my juices is part of his transferring
>power to me. It is so animal...marking my territory. It is so holy,
>baptism in goddess worship I call it. But smells are very important
>and my sub should be marked with mine.
>
>As to drinking it....I talked to several doctor friends of mine and they
>assured me that urine is filled with proteins that are good, rather than
>harmful. The idea of being honored in this manner is just a very big
>turn on for me. Also one of the most aggravating things in the world is
>having to get up in middle of night to go pee. having sub available at
>foot of bed to receive it for me..keeps me warm in middle of night.
>just call me a pratical woman.
>
>Patricia


End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #17
***********************************************

From - Fri Sep 13 12:56:54 1996
>> Hmm... a quick trip to _Goddesses in World Mythology_ by Martha Ann &
>> Dorothy Myers Imel revealed a large number of African goddesses. The first
>> section is devoted entirely to them (excluding Egypt, which has its own
>> extensive section). I quit counting them around 100--which was still in the
>> "E" listings. Modern worshippers in Voudoun, Umbanda, etc. would be very
>> surprised to hear that God/dess worship was non-African!
>>
>> --Lady Phoenix
>
> I may be wrong then - I'll check it out. It was -my-
>understanding that the African 'Goddesses' would be more closely ascribed
>to the Nymphs of Greek mythology than the definition of a god or goddess
>as having dominion over an entire aspect of nature (-my- definition of a
>god or goddess as opposed to say a nymph, satyr, lamia et al. It
>generally works for me but may not be what someone else uses). I will see
>what I can find out.
> I'm completely unfamiliar with Umbanda, but I know modern Voudoun
>is a mixture of a number of african religions with christian overtones,
>at least to the best of my understanding. I only know a very few
>practicianers though (This is Indianapolis, not New Orleans - ) and
>I've found books on the subject notable for the number of times they
>contradict each other - .
> Jonnan
>
>

The African Goddesses seem (to me) similar to Goddesses in other
cultures--all the way from supreme diety/creator (Mawu, Nyame, Tamuno,
Woyengi, etc.) to dieties of specific aspects of nature (such as sea,
weather, moon, sun, stars, insects, and dieties of aspects of human life
(childbirth, fertility, death, education, agriculture, justice, etc.).

Umbanda is similar to Voudoun and comes via Brazil, along with Macumba and
Candomble. Santeria and Ifa are two more African-based syncretic religions.
All of these religions have pantheons that include powerful goddesses who
definitely have "dominion over an entire aspect of nature." One good example
is Yemanja-- "Goddess of Love and Sexuality, Water; Unhappiness; Mother and
Guardian. Goddess of saltwater and freshwater. She is the universal mother."
(from Goddesses in World Mythology)

I came across this on the Net:

"Every New Year's Eve, the wide beaches of Rio undergo an extraordinary
one-night
transformation, changing from pleasure grounds for devotees of sun and surf into
sanctuaries for believers in Umbanda, the city's largest spirit sect. As the
sun sets, millions of people come together on the sands to pay special
homage to the ruling divinity of the sea, Yemanja. Their prayers ask for
blessings in matters of love; oftentimes they are outright requests for
divine intervention. Gathered beside bonfires and candles, they swirl to the
mesmerizing beat of drums and chant hymns. The climactic moment comes at the
stroke of midnight when the worshippers rush to the water's edge and close
their prayers by casting a bouquet of roses into the sea.

I remember standing there at the edge of the ocean with Pia and the rest of
my family watching as millions of people, thousands of them women dressed in
flowing white gowns, tossed roses into the dark waters. The collective
desire to be loved was inspiring. The visual was simply breathtaking. There
was a moment of pious silence where all you could hear was the surf. The
faithful watched intently the flowers they had thrown, for if these flowers
returned to shore, that meant their prayers had fallen on deaf ears and the
new year would bring much heartache.

Pia was so taken by this moment that she commissioned a street artist to
capture it with paints. Now that painting hangs above our chimney.
Oftentimes I caught her looking at it. A look which said: if white gowns and
red roses are the means to speak to God, what splendor heaven must hold."

(http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~skypen/Pia/rio.html)

--Lady Phoenix

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Fri Sep 13 12:56:42 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
Re: Advise please
Re: Advise please
Re: more goddesses
Re: more goddesses
Doing all the things that need to be done
Correction to the correction
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Re: Advise please
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Surrender/bliss: A religious experience?
Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Re: Advise please

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Chase Vogelsberg"
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <199609121629.JAA07915@eskimo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Patricia wrote:
>This feels like a plea for attention...oh please Jonnan stay..I don't
>play that game anymore and will not be manipulated into it at this late
>stage. Stay if you really want to learn...I certainly have spent much
>time getting information to help you understand. If you just want to be
>the winner of a debate...lurk..delurk..whatever.

Ah, felt like a plea for attention to you? Sounded more like someone just
a little bemused by the extremes of 'attention' he was already getting -
not to mention the extremes of vitriol accompanying it. For instance, he
wrote and mentioned some historical atrocities, and

SOMEONE replied:
>don't patronize me with you college education....I have one too.

As though if a man using words with more than two syllables is a sign
that he's attempting to impress with his knowledge. Or, being attacked
with :

>I never mentioned NASA..you did. Our research money did not come from
>NASA...or the Military Budget....just like a man putting his words in my
>mouth and then attacking me for using them.

Same person had written:
>It is the difference between the slash and burn mentality that has so
>shamelessly despoiled our mother the earth who are now spending billions
>on space flight and terraforming..coming up with real scientific ways to
>make Mars habitable for humans after we have nothing left on Earth.

Specific enough to space exploration / colonization to be pretty easy to
see where he presumed NASA was being discussed, and not DOD / Military.
But somehow he's being just like a man and putting words in someone's
mouth.

Jonnan was quoted:
> The Terror was noted for the female involvement,
> which may -imply- that there was little female involvement in the
> protestant catholic wars and the accusations during the inquisition.

And again, virulent reaction:
>Women did not design the manifestos or the systems to impose these
>regimes. God, here we go with the damned if we do damned if we don't
>stuff. Of course women were involved...we live under the same
>patriarchal system...we follow the boys or die, many of us die.

"Damned if we do, damned if we don't", as though Jonnan was somehow out
to -blame- women for such things. And as though a lot of 'the boys'
weren't in the same situation - when the rulers started something, the
men could either follow or die, same's the women. Sorry, but with the
Holocaust, with other moral outrages, people, male -or- female, have a
choice to make. A lot of good people, female -and- male, decided that
they'd rather die than commit atrocities, or actively opposed them. Not
nearly enough - but it seems that male or female, most people are just a
little bit unwilling to die. Fancy that.

Y'know, I wish I hadn't cleaned out the mailbox a bit - there's been an
-awful- lot of reactionary flaming going on, often in the same breath as
talk about tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs. Myself, I'm
a rabid atheist, and often speak out against Xians, as Spirit Wind has
noticed, I'm sure. But it's odd that the -most- intolerant, disrespectful
thing said of late, "Fuck Christ" and more to that effect, came from the
same woman who asks for people to show some respect for her different be-
liefs, speaks of how with women it's more tolerant, that she hadn't been
aware that this was a "defend christianity" mailing list, etc.

Well, I've been here a while, an' I thought I was on a mail list that was
in the business of discussing, among other things, ways to help empower
women, discuss how the feminine principle could be promoted in government,
business and society, and such like. Not the "bash-men/flame-others-
religions/make-men-eat-scat" list, which it lately seems like its becoming.

Feh. I'm gonna return to lurking, an' no, this isn't a plea for
attention, just a matter of me having said my piece. This is, and should
be, Woman's Space, and I don't intend to start disrupting that. But blood
an' bone, I wasn't going to keep quiet about something I felt was wrong,
either. THat's what happened in nazi Germany, remember?

-- \_awless is : A wolf, wild at heart, with a heart of darkness.
-- Chase Vogelsberg (lawless@netcom.com / lawless@eskimo.com)
--
-- The trouble with hell is that the ambient temperature is above the flash
-- point of alcohol. Which means you can't linger over your drink.
-- Alexis A Gilliland

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:42:39 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-ID: <323875BE.3646@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Patricia responds:
your response is vitriolic and not mine...congrats...ah male bonding.
I mentioned nothing about men being shit. It was men on this list who
kept on correcting women for not be specific. I did not mention NASA.
If you had jumped to the defense of the women on this list who were
being attacked for not reading the correct words that one of these men
said, I would be more impressed with you fairness. I will not jump to
your nazi bait...I am not a nazi,, I work for no money defending peoples
rights to housing and fair wages...I have all my life.

that is a giant flame implying I am Nazi because I am strong,
intelligent woman....but you know what...I have better fish to fry then
waste my time with this pointless talking to any of you men anymore...

Patricia
Chase Vogelsberg wrote:
-
> not to mention the extremes of vitriol accompanying it.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: pgm@servtech.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: more goddesses
Message-Id: <199609121823.OAA26463@cyber2.servtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:33 PM 9/11/96 -0700, Patricia wrote:
>and Joseph Campbell muses:
>Full circle, from the tomb of the womb to the womb of the tomb, we come:
>an ambiguous, enigmatical incursion into a world of solid matter that is
>soon to melt from us, like the substance of a dream...
>Men through their recorded history in myth, religion and folklore seek
>to be the hero .. and in all these recorded events and myths they say
>ultimately that the hero is the man of self-achieved submission. But
>submission to what...asks Joseph Campbell in the Hero with a thousand
>Faces.....the women on this list would answer...I think, many of
>us...submission to the feminine..the female..the life principle.

Hey, we have another Campbell fan on the list..coolness. Campbell was
pretty insightful...for a guy ;) And you made an interesting connection
between hero submission and the female principle. To me, this is what it's
all about...molding/improving myself (perhaps even to hero status, but that
seems unlikely) so that I can serve and assist the female principle more
effectively.

To continue Joseph's quote:

"Submission of what?
That is the primary virtue and deed of the hero to resolve."


Sorry for the interruption....you may all return to the intellectual p*ssing
contest/flame thing now.... Warm regards, Paul/mp

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:30:14 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: more goddesses
Message-ID: <323880E6.25BD@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well sometimes intelligent and sometimes not but to you maidpaula and to
all my sisters on this list my wish is
FOLLOW YOUR BLISS
Patricia
pgm@servtech.com wrote:
>
> At 09:33 PM 9/11/96 -0700, Patricia wrote:
> >and Joseph Campbell muses:
> >Full circle, from the tomb of the womb to the womb of the tomb, we come:
> >an ambiguous, enigmatical incursion into a world of solid matter that is
> >soon to melt from us, like the substance of a dream...
> >Men through their recorded history in myth, religion and folklore seek
> >to be the hero .. and in all these recorded events and myths they say
> >ultimately that the hero is the man of self-achieved submission. But
> >submission to what...asks Joseph Campbell in the Hero with a thousand
> >Faces.....the women on this list would answer...I think, many of
> >us...submission to the feminine..the female..the life principle.
>
> Hey, we have another Campbell fan on the list..coolness. Campbell was
> pretty insightful...for a guy ;) And you made an interesting connection
> between hero submission and the female principle. To me, this is what it's
> all about...molding/improving myself (perhaps even to hero status, but that
> seems unlikely) so that I can serve and assist the female principle more
> effectively.
>
> To continue Joseph's quote:
>
> "Submission of what?
> That is the primary virtue and deed of the hero to resolve."
>
> Sorry for the interruption....you may all return to the intellectual p*ssing
> contest/flame thing now.... Warm regards, Paul/mp
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
> For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
> mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: jet@nwlink.com (jet)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Doing all the things that need to be done
Message-Id: <199609122038.NAA00203@montana.nwlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

peter--

>I don't think that men think about it that deeply even when they do
>try to make it difficult for women.

Probably not as most seem to mindlessly go through life instead of
mindfully. I mean most people, not just men, which is why women
have such a hard time getting a stronghold in patriarchal society,
and it would probably be the same in a matriarchal society. Remember
Phyllis Schaffley (I think that was her name).

>One of the main reasons why more women don't reach positions of power
>is they tend to spread themselves too thinly while men tend to
>concentrate on a subject and ignore other things.

This is true...that's why women need subs/slaves to do the things
that usually take up time when we could be doing things that help
promote Female Supremacy.

>Although I agree that women are superior to men I can't imagine how
>the world will develop. Will it just be like today but with as many
>women in positions of power as men are now and more men will have the
>lowly jobs .... or will society grant women some institutionalised
>power? My guess is the former.

I think that society will grant men some institutionalized power, myself.
:)

Jet

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:10:12 -0800
From: leather@zephyr.net (leather)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Correction to the correction
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I, personally, feel that Chase is out of line attempting to set Patricia
straight. She is obviously a highly intellegent and opinionated Supreme
Female and it is "quite like a man" to attempt to squelch that. If she had
truly been *that* far out of line... don't you think our FS moderator would
be more suited to address that issue than you?

I'm definately new to this list but not to FS. It made no sense to Me for
you to take this path, Chase. If you think *I* am out of line... spare Me
your correction. BTW, this is not intended as a "flame." You may, however,
assume that this is one Supreme Female setting forth an observation.

Leather

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />
leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
\ /
http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
\/Y\/
http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
_____/__\______
toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:35:58 -0500
From: kriv@interlog.com (peter)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Leather, would you please give some general idea of how you teach your sons
the concepts of FS?
Thank you
Peter>
>
>
>I have two teenage sons. Teaching them the concepts of FS has not been
>easy. Society teaches them something different (men have "the" power)... it
>is a struggle for them to choose not to buy into it.
>
>As a girl, I would have chosen FS was an option instead of resign to
>females finding a man and cleaving (in submission) to him. Ack!!! Thank
>Goddess I grew up and discovered My own truths! I'd hate to have died early
>and ignorant... never having known the pleasure of My "own" power!
>
>Leather
>
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
>leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
> \ /
>http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
> \/Y\/
>http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
> _____/__\______
>toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689
>
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:36:48 -0500
From: kriv@interlog.com (peter)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

To add to Patricia:
Jonnan, you're not going to win. The women on this list are just too strong
for you. They're either going to like what you say, or not like what you
say. And they'll let you know.

What you do is entirely up to you. You can stay on this list and enjoy some
postings, trash others you find boring, respond to others, whatever. But,
whatever you do, be polite.

Nobody is forcing you to stay.
Peter>
>
>
>This feels like a plea for attention...oh please Jonnan stay..I don't
>play that game anymore and will not be manipulated into it at this late
>stage. Stay if you really want to learn...I certainly have spent much
>time getting information to help you understand. If you just want to be
>the winner of a debate...lurk..delurk..whatever. You seem to be under
>the impression that the books have told you everything. but the books
>are written under a patriarchal system that only rewards those who
>uphold the system...you seem to have difficulty understanding that basic
>premise.
>Patricia
>
>
>(deleted alot)
>
>> Jonnan West wrote:
>>
>>
>> > At any rate, it's not a level of decorum I can trust myself -to-
>> > hold to, and I therefore need a (consensus is not quite the right term,
>> > but I can't think of anything better) from those with a long-term
>> > understanding of the nature of debate on this mailing list.
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:40:48 GMT
From: Peter Saxton
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-ID: <32386891.164480263@post.demon.co.uk>

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:51:39 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

>
>
>On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Peter Saxton wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:45:03 -0400, Laura wrote:
>
>> >Here's some scat-logic for literal types:
>
>> >Everything that women produce is shit
>> >Women produce males
>> >Therefore males are shit! ;)
>
>> Don't women produce females, too?
>
>That's a _reductio_, Peter. It's how I got into trouble in the first
>place.
>
Sorry, I better quickly crawl away! :-)

peter

Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: aehthex@magi.com (Lorraine Jobin)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-Id: <199609130045.UAA10472@infoweb.magi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hello everyone:

Would someone be so kind as to send me a copy of this poem? The mail server
was down and I did not receive any posting for the 9th & 10th. I must have
missed some interesting posts judging from the volume and callibre of
replies. Thanks!!


>Patricia wrote-
>
>Thank you for the beautiful and haunting poem...it is one of my favorites
>as well. Here is a class example of a woman who was squashed by
>patriarchy... I can understand and this is why I subscribe to this list
>and I am trying to raise my daughter with the high ideals I see here.
>I do not want her to have to struggle as we do and hope that by the time
>she is an adult, it will be more equal or at the very least much more
>supportive of women. If not, perhaps she will be another of the catalysts.
>
>Jet
>
>>and this is for Dee Ann and Laura and Jet and Sorceress and Leather and
>>all the wonderful and wonder-filled women on this list, and to the
>>hundreds of millions of women who have been wounded, scared, altered,
>>killed by Patriachy...and those millions who have survived and thrived
>>even within the half-life that Patriarchy has allowed them..each is my
>>sister..this is a gift of a favorite poem of mine that I identify with
>>totally.
>>
>>HER KIND, by Anne Sexton
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 18:34:37 -0700
From: jnbry@ix.netcom.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Surrender/bliss: A religious experience?
Message-Id: <1996912203330541@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

This is more or less responsive to the surrender/bliss thread but mainly its
just something I want to say.

Since human history began, people (particularly men?) have "submitted", in
the realest sense of the word, to causes and beliefs. There is an innate
desire to be a part of something larger -- a nation, religion, a political
movement, a business organization. The heroic by definition is the single
individual suffering for some larger and nobler cause.

This sacrifice of individuals to find purpose and direction from a variety
of external higher sources is something almost everyone accepts.

Growing up in a fundamentalist rural church, there was nothing out of the
ordinary to see some burly farmer weeping openly as he walked down the aisle
in front of family and friends to repent of real or imagined sins whilst the
congregation banged out yet another chorus of "Just as I Am" just in case he
had somehow forgotten what a "wretch" he truely was.

We all understood his need to beg for forgiveness and mercy. His worship of
a being that he had never seen and which may or may not exist was "normal",
even if taken to extremes. The emotional catharsis of his act of submission
to the devine was *powerful* and he left the experience feeling clean and
renewed.

About a year ago, I began to worship the special woman who now rules my
life. I loved her before, but now I love, honor and obey her. I am at her
feet, both figuratively and literally, every day. There is nothing mystical
about this, but the feeling of only being complete when I submit to her is
more fulfilling than anything else I have found.

My wife won't ever walk on water or turn water into wine. She does not know
the eternal secrets of life. She is a flawed human being, as are we all.

Nontheless, I prefer to invest my devotion in a flawed human being that I
can touch and serve and love. It is the only thing I have found in this
life that is akin to an honest religious experience.

For *her*, I would go on any crusade even if all she usually asks of me is
that I clean the kitchen.


Jim

PS: I'm not saying others aren't honest in their religion; in fact, my wife
is as religious as I am agnostic. Just before she packs our three boys into
the minivan to take them to church sunday morning she always gives me
instructions as to what to do while she is gone. I think it is a way cool
contrast.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:36:13 GMT
From: Peter Saxton
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Message-ID: <32388a86.173174826@post.demon.co.uk>

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:38:45 -0700 (PDT), Jet wrote:

>peter--
>
>>One of the main reasons why more women don't reach positions of power
>>is they tend to spread themselves too thinly while men tend to
>>concentrate on a subject and ignore other things.
>
>This is true...that's why women need subs/slaves to do the things
>that usually take up time when we could be doing things that help
>promote Female Supremacy.
>
Most of my girlfriends have not been feminists never mind female
supremacists and I would never dare announce that I was submissive to
women for fear of being thought a weirdo! My way would be more subtle,
getting a woman drinks, massaging her feet, offering to do the
shopping, washing up, cleaning, etc. I can't think of one woman who
didn't accept the situation and didn't take full advantage of it. I
think most people believe in equality at work and I'm sure that
practically all women would go along with female supremacy at home but
I don't see how the majority of men are going to be convinced unless
women insist on the equality of their children.

>>Although I agree that women are superior to men I can't imagine how
>>the world will develop. Will it just be like today but with as many
>>women in positions of power as men are now and more men will have the
>>lowly jobs .... or will society grant women some institutionalised
>>power? My guess is the former.
>
>I think that society will grant men some institutionalized power, myself.
>:)
>
>Jet
>
I promise I didn't mean it the way it sounded! :-)

peter

Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:40:50 GMT
From: Peter Saxton
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-ID: <323869f0.164831084@post.demon.co.uk>

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 02:42:10 -0500 (EST), Jonnan wrote:

> Okay. This is a Femsupremacy mailing list. I -knew- this was a
>Femsupremacy mailing list when I saw it on the sight I found it on, I
>knew I was distinctly -not- definable as a Femsupremist, before I joined
>and I up and joined anyway, read several days worth of mail to get the
>general 'flavor' of the discourse, saw an intelligent group of people
>debating an interesting philosophy (albeit one I disagreed with on a
>number of levels) and wanted to know the rationale behind the philosophy.
>
> I posted a long, fairly involved letter, and have gotten a great
>deal from the responses to that letter, positive and negative, and have
>attempted to follow the threads resulting from it to the best of my
>ability. Some of the areas I -thought- I knew fairly well, I obviously
>need more education in but even -that- information is not information I
>would have had had I not involved myself. Some other areas I believe I
>made valid points in, and -hopefully- explained -my- rationale and
>assumptions fairly well.
>
> However I have evidently -not- been as polite in my debate as I
>would have hoped, and have severely offended at least one person and
>noted that at least two others evidently feel me to be a disruptive
>influence whose presence would not be missed. If I felt my writing skills
>and ability to communicate were up to the task of maintaining a higher
>level of decorum on a consistent basis, I might simply refrain from
>posting unless I could consistently maintain such a level of decorum. I
>will confess I didn't see that such a level was necessary, but, a guest
>in my home is not permitted the same level of familiarity as someone whom
>I have supped with for years, and I -am- the interloper who barged in
>requesting the secrets of the universe in small, easy-to-handle pieces,
>so perhaps it is a level that -I- need to be held to, if I am to debate
>on a list from an essentially contradictory viewpoint.
>
> So the question becomes, do I, as an person already announced to
>be in conflict on some levels with the espoused views of those on this
>mailing list, have a right or a need to remain on this list against the
>notable objections of members in good standing who feel that there is a
>certain basic assumption that, females or feminine qualities, however
>defined, are intrinsically superior to males or masculine qualities, that
>should be shared by anyone actively participating in discourse on this
>list, and that those who are -not- in alignment with that assumption,
>should debate their philosophy elsewhere.
>
I would think it very difficult for someone who doesn't believe in the
superiority of females to contribute positively to this list over any
length of time.

I may not agree with many things said but I think your "heart needs to
be in the right place" if the list is going to be useful.

I am not the kind of person that can develop by just reading other
people's opinions - I need to contribute. I also accept that there are
many people on the list who have thought about the subjects discussed
much more deeply than I have and therefore my comments may be stupid,
inappropriate, boring or wrong! But not all the time! :-)

If I am criticised I can usually understand the other persons point of
view and consider my comments again. Even if I find I still disagree
it has at least helped to reinforce my views so I would still
appreciate the comment and treat the person with respect.

At this early stage I am still a bit of an embarrassment but I think
in time I will make a great improvement but I still believe that
fundamentally you should be a believer in female supremacy.

peter

Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #16
***********************************************

From - Sun Sep 15 17:58:40 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:
Re: Advise please
Re: Advise please
Surrender/bliss: A religious experience?
Re: Advise please
Re: Advise please
Re: Surrender & Bliss 1 more time
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Re: Surrender/bliss: A religious experience?
Re: Delay In Messages
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Room on that Broomstick ?
Re: Delay In Messages
Re: Advise please
Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Re: Advise please

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:27:43 -0400
From: Laura Goodwin
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960913132743.006a4f04@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:42 PM 9/12/96 -0700, Noble wrote:
>Patricia responds:

>I mentioned nothing about men being shit.

Actually shit came up as a topic because a sub male on the list wanted to
bare his breast about his fetish for eating it, some other sub male praised
the practice, I published my ambivalent tale of love and disgust, and later
a silly little syllogism. As far as I know, there been no other discussion
on that pungent topic, and my hubby wishes you all would get on the ball!
He was kind of hoping that *somebody* here would somehow make it all OK for
me. ;)

Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:05:12 +0100
From: robert and fiona forsythe
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-ID:

In message <2.2.32.19960913132756.006b62c8@popd.ix.netcom.com>, Laura
Goodwin writes
>
>"CAN THAT NOISE, OR YOU ARE OUT OF HERE!"
>
>If you are allowed in at all, it should be with the understanding that you
>will respect us and not interfere with us. If you do not do this, and are
>not ejected, it reflects poorly on the group and especially the group's
>leadership. The longer disruptive and non-supportive behavior is allowed on
>this list, the more it looks like femsupremacy is a bunch of hooey. I, for
>one, do not intend to let anybody think that.
>
>Laura Goodwin
>
>
>"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
>of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
>and reward tolerant behavior."
>
>___________________________________________________________________
Hey, hey, this is getting too serious,

how does Jonnan show disrespect?
how does Jonnan disrupt?

the mite has asked questions, some challenging, some a bit verbose,
maybe some might grate with some characters, maybe he has some learning
to do,

but it reads very strange to our eyes to read what Jonnan has said, the
poor guy even opens his bowels to grovel about whether he should be here
in the first place, then to read what you say in your main post Laura
AND then to read whatever it is called that follows your signature (not
being catty, it is our lack of technical knowhow). You used the idea of
a religious service, but this is not a ritual service it is a discussion
group.

Laura, please look at it all from another planet where perhaps they had
never heard of gender, a lovely place full of andrognynous rubber clad
happy creatures free from threat,
we think those viewers, given that they also had the rational brains we
all have, might find something of a tension between your clarion call to
presumably boot Jonnan and those final three lines.

Jonnan seems to us nowhere near a Tony. Yes, we go along with the idea
that we were well rid of him, but before too long if the consensus is
that the arrival of folk like Jonnan cannot be coped with, enjoyed and
disagreed with if you wish, if instead it brings out the "this is
private and our territory", we will probably both quietly go. Actually
this is, for bad or good, a very public list, all you do is press a
button and you're there, there is as yet no entry exam marked by Dee-
Ann! There is a call to be sympathetic and respectful of participants
and the varied beliefs many have in fs. We say again what has Jonnan
said that is just so OTT? And if at any stage he came near to ever being
a touch rude, as Chase reminded us all, that tendency may have been two
way.
--
fiona and robert forsythe

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 96 16:20:34 EDT
From: OhEadhra <101342.2030@CompuServe.COM>
To: FS
Subject: Surrender/bliss: A religious experience?
Message-ID: <960913202033_101342.2030_GHW96-1@CompuServe.COM>

Jim wrote :
>Nonetheless, I prefer to invest my devotion in a flawed human being that I
>can touch and serve and love. It is the only thing I have found in this
>life that is akin to an honest religious experience.

Totally correct !! From the age of 5, I lost interest in religion - from the
age of 13 I adored women. Laura, as usual, hit the nail on the head -
men worship women, and leave the spiritual aspects to women - suits me!

Dennis (t.o.m)


She wears chains of bondage
She wears the wings of hope
She wears the gown of plenty
and still its hard to cope

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:43:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: aehthex@magi.com (Lorraine Jobin)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <199609132143.RAA29664@infoweb.magi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hello Laura:

A couple of years ago, subbie was lying on the floor next to the bed
like the good little doggie he is, when suddenly he said: "Mistress, I
would eat or drink anything that came from you. I would eat your shit,
drink your piss...", yadda yadda yadda. I thought it was just his bizarre
way of endearing himself to me. Boy, was I green. You can just imagine how
freaked out I was when I realized he meant it literally! Well, a couple of
months ago, he was coming to Ottawa for a visit, so I thought I would
surprise him and buy him a double doggie dish and leave it on the bathroom
floor. I had not anticipated his response. He was floored (teehee)! I was
grossed out. After bugging me and bugging me, I obliged, but just a little
bit. The only reason I was able to do it was because I was upset at him
about something (not the way I like to conduct business, thank you very
much), and made it a punishment. That was the only way I could do it and so
far, that is the only time. I have no problem with urine or any other
bodily fluid. But I just can't cottonelle to that one! In my case, it
isn't that I would not do it again for him. I love him and would fulfill
just about any of his needs. All I want to know is -WHY? Why that?! He
doesn't know.

He lived in Holland for a few years and from what he has told me, the girls
he met over there have absolutely no qualms about it. He told me about
these nightclubs where men pay to lie under the toilet so that women can pee
and shit on them. I don't care where he's been, but I'm not so sure I could
oblige him all the time now. Not so much that I don't want to -just why?
It really is a filthy hangup --

Maybe billy or peter or someone could enlighten (?) me, maybe by private
e-mail, but I don't mind sharing. We seem to be getting just a wee bit off
the fs topic and I don't want to offend anybody.

Sorry Bruce, I'm with Laura -

Mistress Lorraine


Laura wrote:

>Actually shit came up as a topic because a sub male on the list wanted to
>bare his breast about his fetish for eating it, some other sub male praised
>the practice, I published my ambivalent tale of love and disgust, and later
>a silly little syllogism. As far as I know, there been no other discussion
>on that pungent topic, and my hubby wishes you all would get on the ball!
>He was kind of hoping that *somebody* here would somehow make it all OK for
>me. ;)
>
>Laura Goodwin
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: amfas@netcom.com (Coyote Sings)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <199609132242.PAA21489@netcom18.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1064

>
> Sorry Bruce, I'm with Laura -
>
> Mistress Lorraine
>
me, too, if anyone were to ask.

BUT

as squicked as I am for both aesthetic reasons and because of the
year spent living with my bother's HIV-laced shit, I still would support
having the discussion here for those for whom it might be important.

Though we should always be respectful of one another and stay more or less
on-topic, it seems that this should be a safe place to discuss any aspect
of FS or related topics and events. ^^^^ ^^^
My own line would be drawn at the ab-use of children or animals, but nowhere
else.

Jonnan: Welcome. Think terse, polish your thoughts, heed your Betters in
their space (perhaps better than I have learned to do). And enjoy. :)

Everyone: be careful out there.

c.s.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 96 18:43:02 EDT
From: Jon Woolven <100410.1764@CompuServe.COM>
To: "INTERNET:femsupremacy@renaissoft.com"
Subject: Re: Surrender & Bliss 1 more time
Message-ID: <960913224302_100410.1764_JHU110-1@CompuServe.COM>

>From me:

>Kalika says if only more men were prepared to surrender. From my
>perspective, if only there were more Kalikas who would appreciate male
>surrender.

>From Kalika:
>Why Jon, I'll take that as a nice compliment .

>From me again:

Thank you Kalika, it was certainly meant that way. There are some people you
instantly warm to, even in an Email world, and you were one of those
from your very first message. Incidentally, Kalika is a wonderful name.

I nearly included something about BDSM relationships in my original reply, but
I edited it out because I'm worried about the volume on this list. It's
exciting to
see the community growing, but how much traffic can we sustain? My mailing
service freezes at 100 messages, so if I can't access the list in three days, I
lose
messages. I suspect we'll reach crisis point soon and may need to split into
sub communities.

[Incidentally to Jonnan - if you're a student, shouldn't you knuckle down to
studying
some time, unless perhaps you're on such an enlightened course as Post
Patriarchal
Studies?
If you're still trying to explore the logic behind Female Supremacy, consider
the
impact of male and female hormones. Male hormones were valuable when there
were aggressive environments that had to be tamed, but what is their value now?
Why
are criminals predominantly male? Why is domestic violence predominantly male?
Which gender provides the main source of aggresion and where might this lead if
not curtailed?]

So Kalika, I fully agree with what you say about BDSM relationships.
What goes on below the surface is very complex and subtle and in my experience
genuine Female Dominants are usually exceptionally considerate and unselfish.
However, they appear to be few and far between and so my chances of forming a
relationship with an enlightened Kalika are, I suspect, remote. I do believe
there
are many latent female dominants and so I welcome any contribution our
community might make to helping more women find such
fulfillment (okay, I admit, there may be some self-interest in there too).

However, I currently enjoy a very balanced relationship with a wonderful,
intelligent,
simultaneously assertive yet vulnerable woman. BDSM will surely always be a
minority
pursuit and so if we are to build a practical blueprint for a better world we
must extend
our philosophies to the mainstream. That was the sprit behind my message.
Surrender
is a minority pursuit. How can we encourage an harmonious, sustainable,
relationship
between the sexes amongst the mass population?

If I ever figure that out, I promise to let you all know!

Regards

Jon


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 18:38:28 -0500
From: sorceress@CYBEROTI.COM
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-ID:

E>since all the anthropoligists were men...it's not so odd that we heard
FE>it all from the male point of view...


You forgot MARGARET MEADE! My IDOL!!!

But you DID give an excellent list of references--
CybErotiComm Online

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 07:27:33 +0100
From: robert and fiona forsythe
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Surrender/bliss: A religious experience?
Message-ID: <4KItOKAV7POyEwXB@forsythe.demon.co.uk>

In message <1996912203330541@ix.netcom.com>, jnbry@ix.netcom.com writes
>This is more or less responsive to the surrender/bliss thread but mainly its
>just something I want to say.
and the rest.................

Jim

we both thought this lovely and could go along with you all the way,
have a very special time together, both of you, for a long time (and
maybe always, eternally?).

--
fiona and robert forsythe

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barry Emerson Wright
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
cc: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Delay In Messages
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Dee-Ann LeBlanc wrote:

> Lorraine Jobin wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, that was the problem with the e-mail. Barry, fiona and robert, you
> > should be getting all your mail now. We Canucks are on top of it!!!!! Haha!!

Thanks to everyone who replied to my message, mostly in private but a few
on the list. Looks like there were multiple problems, including the one
with my server. It's good to have such a caring group of friends.

> Well, fortunately, the ISP I use isn't an iSTAR ISP, so the list has
> been going on as usual. :) For those non-Canucks, iSTAR is a company
> who has been buying up Canadian ISPs like they're candy.

Welcome to the wonderful world of late-stage capitalism! At least Canada
is not as far along the hell-bent road as is the States, but if your
example is any indication the direction is the same.

This is a bit off-topic, but my curiosity is piqued. Both of you have
used the term "Canucks". When I lived briefly in Ontario about
twenty-five years ago, that was a very insulting term. Have things
changed so much that is is now acceptable?

Peace,

Barry

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:40:45 GMT
From: Peter Saxton
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-ID: <32386663.163922438@post.demon.co.uk>

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:36:41 -0400, Laura wrote:

>At 07:20 AM 9/12/96 GMT, Peter Saxton wrote:
>
>>I don't think that men think about it that deeply even when they do
>>try to make it difficult for women.
>
>They don't think. Why should they? It's a done deal! They think only when
>it begins to unravel, like it's now doing. :)
>
I don't think men are trying to hold women back. In fact I think most
men appreciate the qualities that women bring to organisations.

>>One of the main reasons why more women don't reach positions of power
>>is they tend to spread themselves too thin...(etc.)
>
>That is not our choice. Ever hear of the glass ceiling? When you can rise
>no higher yet must do something, you tend to spread out. We are forced to
>concentrate on millions of petty details, partially because it keeps us from
>marshalling our forces into one force.
>
I think women spread themselves thinly before they have even thought
about the glass ceiling.

>Men who do think can see that this bullshit is not ultimately helping
>anyone, but hurting everyone. Men who do think realize that the human race
>must be united for the purpose of survival, for the good of all, and are as
>likely to trust a woman's leadership as a man's.
>
In Europe there have been many political leaders who are female. North
American women are thought of as more assertive than European women.
When I was an auditor in an international firm of accountants about 20
years ago a third of the trainees were women and on many jobs the
seniors were women. Admittedly, there were very few managers and
partners then.

peter

Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 18:03:00 -0600 (MDT)
From: Kalika
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Room on that Broomstick ?
Message-Id: <199609140002.RAA15136@netbox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I just wanted to offer my complete support for Patricia in Her lengthy
verbal battles of late. Keep the pressure on Dear Lady !

Leather said ..."What She said.." I'll second that again !

Frankly I no longer read anything by Micah or Johann ...while Johann has at
times demonstrated a plesant sense of humor, his posts are both way to long
and for me, of basically little interest. I am not interested in debating
equality vs FemSupremacy. I accept / believe in / support / and try to live,
... the complete reality of the Superiority of the Feminine Principle.

Here, on this List, I believe if it isn't so, that it should be ... that
here, Female / Feminine Supremancy is a *Given* ... is taken for granted.

If someone doesn't like that or can't accept that ... stay and learn, but
"quietly" learn. If Johann goes, I will not miss him ... to much bandwidth
being taken up by him and the reactions that are necessary to his posts.
Ditto for Micha.

To be very up front, I have to deal with crap like this every day in the
workplace and I am sick of it and here on this List, I'd like a break from
it. What is "it" ? I am refering to the fact that males are sooo left brain
oriented ... so linear .. so unflexible in their approach to things and so
limited in the abilities they bring to the solving of any problem. males,
too often use the intellectual attack method, of being totally "logical" /
linear ... generally males lack the ability to use much of their right brain
in concert with their left brain (there are of course exceptions and I
treasure those) they are so single hemisphere oriented. As a result, they
have less "tools" to bring to the table ...

males (when they can't use big muscles) use this type of intellectual nit
picking / logical / linear mode of attack ... taking out of context ...
semantic nit picking ... assuming everything is to be taken literally (as a
result of their often inability to use any aspect except the left
hemisphere) ... to still be basically civil and academically "correct" so no
one can say they aren't "polite"... To me, it is the same old 10,000 year
old BS, just less physical.

I vote to have Dee-Ann exercise greater power. The List was having a
wonderful and IMO, highly informative and educational exchange regarding FS
in the workplace. I felt we all could learn from it .. all could enjoy it
and all could use things therefrom to enhance our personal workplace
environment (or fantasy thereof). I enjoyed posts from males like Malcolm,
Zbobz, Coyote, Maid Paula ...so I am not against full participation by
males. I miss postings by Marissa, etc. on this and other topics and I see
these being forced out to make room in the bandwidth for this other stuff.

(Here, Patricia, feel no rebuke from me, absolutely the opposite, You have
carried the banner valiantly !!! Here ! Here !)

Leather said :

> .... Patricia ..., She is obviously a highly intellegent and opinionated
>Supreme Female and it is "quite like a man" to attempt to squelch that.

Like Leather said ... "What She said. "

Kalika

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 20:41:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: aehthex@magi.com (Lorraine Jobin)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Delay In Messages
Message-Id: <199609140041.UAA02133@infoweb.magi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Gee Barry,
That's a good one. I've always been a "Crazy Canuck". I don't ever
remember that term as being an insult, but you never know: I was
sleepwalking through life 25 years ago!!

Cheers!

Lorraine
Ottawa, ONTARIO

P.S. You must have heard of one of our NHL Hockey teams - The Vancouver
Canucks!



>This is a bit off-topic, but my curiosity is piqued. Both of you have
>used the term "Canucks". When I lived briefly in Ontario about
>twenty-five years ago, that was a very insulting term. Have things
>changed so much that is is now acceptable?
>
>Peace,
>
>Barry
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 20:39:59 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-ID: <323A290F.5105@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

having done my golden showers routine for you all, I should add, I do
not do anything with shit either. The problems of e-coli and everything
else are so great..it is definetly a limit of mine....people talk about
subs limits all the time..well DOMMES have limits too....although during
training...a sub cannot go to the bathroom unless he asks permission and
I have to take him...since he is collared and leashed, but this is just
part of the psychological giving over of ownership that I think is
important in training..so he knowes even his bathroom rituals belong to
me...
I'm so cerebral....
Patricia


Coyote Sings wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry Bruce, I'm with Laura -
> >
> > Mistress Lorraine
> >
> me, too, if anyone were to ask.
>
> BUT
>
> as squicked as I am for both aesthetic reasons and because of the
> year spent living with my bother's HIV-laced shit, I still would support
> having the discussion here for those for whom it might be important.
>
> Though we should always be respectful of one another and stay more or less
> on-topic, it seems that this should be a safe place to discuss any aspect
> of FS or related topics and events. ^^^^ ^^^
> My own line would be drawn at the ab-use of children or animals, but nowhere
> else.
>
> Jonnan: Welcome. Think terse, polish your thoughts, heed your Betters in
> their space (perhaps better than I have learned to do). And enjoy. :)
>
> Everyone: be careful out there.
>
> c.s.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
> For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
> mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 21:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Message-Id: <199609140424.VAA00654@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1158

jet wrote:
>
> peter--
>
> >One of the main reasons why more women don't reach positions of power
> >is they tend to spread themselves too thinly while men tend to
> >concentrate on a subject and ignore other things.
>
> This is true...that's why women need subs/slaves to do the things
> that usually take up time when we could be doing things that help
> promote Female Supremacy.

A nice start would be mates who are willing and _do_ chip in at least
half of the necessary work at home. ;) Too many women are expected
to keep the house clean, get dinner ready, chauffer the kids, raise
the kids, etc. while too many men think this work is beneath them.
It's the attitude of "beneath" that has to change. Not only does it
keep them from doing their fair share of the work...it also allows
them to see women as "beneath" them because the women _do_ do that
work.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 21:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <199609140429.VAA00665@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1392

Peter Saxton wrote:
>
> I would think it very difficult for someone who doesn't believe in the
> superiority of females to contribute positively to this list over any
> length of time.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Peter. It's not that
people who don't fully believe aren't welcome, or can't get anything
out of this list. It's that people really can't be expected to
constantly "prove" female supremacy is real and viable to every person
who isn't sure. For one thing, it's a belief that can border on the
religious, and how do you prove your religion is true? For another,
it's hard to get anything else done if you spend all of your time
trying to convince new people that your beliefs are right?

I think for someone who isn't sure to do well here, it's best for them
to do a lot of listening, post the occasional question, and try to
understand where folks are coming from through a lot of observation.
Even at the end of a question post inviting people to e-mail if they
want to talk in more depth about the subject might get some private
responses from those who are interested.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #18
***********************************************

From - Sun Sep 15 17:58:49 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:
Re: Advise please
Re: Advise please
Re: Advise please
Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate
Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate
please/ more goodwill, less badwill
Re: Delay In Messages
Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Dominants and their limits (Re: Advise please)
Re: Advise please

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 22:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <199609140500.WAA00733@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3305

robert and fiona forsythe wrote:
>
> Jonnan seems to us nowhere near a Tony. Yes, we go along with the idea
> that we were well rid of him, but before too long if the consensus is
> that the arrival of folk like Jonnan cannot be coped with, enjoyed and
> disagreed with if you wish, if instead it brings out the "this is
> private and our territory", we will probably both quietly go. Actually
> this is, for bad or good, a very public list, all you do is press a
> button and you're there, there is as yet no entry exam marked by Dee-
> Ann! There is a call to be sympathetic and respectful of participants
> and the varied beliefs many have in fs. We say again what has Jonnan
> said that is just so OTT? And if at any stage he came near to ever being
> a touch rude, as Chase reminded us all, that tendency may have been two
> way.

Well, I'm not certain that he's left the list, but he did say that
he's taking a hiatus from posting.

I think part of the problem is that he responded too quickly and
verbosely to every post directed to him, so that the entire list was
tied up with people trying to "educate" him. That gets frustrating
fast if you can't see that you're getting anywhere and yet traffic is
so high that it's hard to have any other discussions. I don't think
it's "our turf and if you don't agree get out." However, I do feel
that people have to respect the fact that folks aren't just going to
spend all of their time trying to convert them. We do have other
things to discuss, such as how to make progress in the real world in
other ways. Making progress by helping someone new to understand
femsupremacy is also a plus, but it's a bit much to expect folks to
drop everything and do it on demand over and over.

My suggestions on how to deal with these kinds of things are thus:

1. Don't respond within at least 24 hours to posts from folks who
tend to respond immediately. That keeps the topics involving them
from bogging up the list.
2. If you want to respond, consider responding privately.
3. If someone is here looking like they're just to be a pain, the
best way to annoy them is to ignore them. If they continue and prove
they're here just to be a pain, trust the friendly list admin to deal
with them. Why let them win by letting them bung up the list with
lots of traffic about them?
4. If you read something that makes you really angry, don't respond
immediately. Close your eyes, count to 10. Get up and go do
something else for a while. Don't respond until a few days later if
you have to. The world can do with a bit more calm and a bit less
angry words the person may not have really meant. If you're still
angry over it a few days later, well then, it really does press some
hot buttons. Sit down, write up a post that explains what pisses you
off so much, and post away.

I really don't mean this to be a lecture, but the nest seems to be a
bit stirred up. :) Just my little attempt to try to bring everyone
back to center and get onto more productive things!

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 22:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <199609140513.WAA00769@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1608

Coyote Sings wrote:
>
> as squicked as I am for both aesthetic reasons and because of the
> year spent living with my bother's HIV-laced shit, I still would support
> having the discussion here for those for whom it might be important.

Safety is always a good topic. However, this list is already majorly
high traffic at the moment. As long as the posts on this subject
don't get out of hand, it would be ok. People should always know
fully what they're getting into when trying out new things that can be
potentially dangerous.

> Though we should always be respectful of one another and stay more or less
> on-topic, it seems that this should be a safe place to discuss any aspect
> of FS or related topics and events. ^^^^ ^^^
> My own line would be drawn at the ab-use of children or animals, but nowhere
> else.

Well, this is a tough one. You are correct, to a point. However, I
really do try to "encourage" folks to keep any BDSM topics related to
female supremacy. There are a LOT of BDSM forums on the Internet, and
more can be created. Perhaps people with common ground might want to
form little discussion groups using mail aliases, and share what
they've learned from one another on occasion? We just have too much
traffic (at the moment) for me to let up too much on this rule.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 06:58:18 +0100
From: Grant Nightingale
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960914055818.00671a7c@popmail.i-way.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 17:43 13/09/96 -0400, Lorraine Jobin wrote:
>Hello Laura:
>..........I have no problem with urine or any other
>bodily fluid. But I just can't cottonelle to that one! ..... All I want to
know is -WHY? ..... He >doesn't know.
>
>
>Laura wrote:
>
>>As far as I know, there been no other discussion
>>on that pungent topic, and my hubby wishes you all would get on the ball!
>>He was kind of hoping that *somebody* here would somehow make it all OK for
>>me. ;)
There *was* some discussion around this topic, in January:

>Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 19:05:09 +0000
>From: ladytech@pionet.net (Robin L. Breth)

>
>Let's see what My bible says. . .
>ah, yes. . Coprophagy, the act of eating feces for sexual arousal. . . long
>history, looseing much of its popularity witin the last three centuries. .
>.. . .Eskimo mothers and their children. . .ancient aphrodisiac miced with
>semen and feces of hawks, ah , Human feces. . common medical remedy use to
>cure a wide variety of diseases with a long list of medical purposes. . a
>quote from Ezekiel (4:12 BTW) about it. . .Here we are . . .but no one
>asked WHY, so I shall skip that part, unless any one wants to KNOW. . .
> CAUTION: Eating anyone else's feces is considered a risk because of
>AIDS, hepatitis, giardia, amebiosis, and many other diseases. Even one's
>own feces must be kept away from cuts due to the risk of infections from
>dangerous organisms and bacteria. For these reasons some people use
>cellophane as a protective barrier.
>(Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, B.Love: Barricade Books Inc.ISBN
>0-942637-64-X)

>ate: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:47:27 -0800
>From: lalaura@ix.netcom.com (Laura Goodwin )
>To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
>Subject: Re: Specific training
>Message-Id: <199601030247.SAA13620@ix10.ix.netcom.com>
>
>You wrote:
>
>> Avoid listening to misguided, well meaning Luddites who tell
>>"Your sky will fall" if you try it.
>
>OK, but I fed my hubby *today*. I'm no naysayer to the practice
>itself. He asked if one could get sick and the answer is "yes", if
>your partner who feeds you is carrying something nasty. My husband and
>I have been a couple for nearly 11 years and I KNOW we are both
>healthy. If you don't know the feeder, the risk *is* huge.
>--
>
>Laura Goodwin

>Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 10:19:15 -0500 (EST)
>From: immoral ms teas
>To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
>cc: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
>Subject: Re: Specific training
>Message-ID:
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Laura Goodwin wrote:
>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> OK, but I fed my hubby *today*. I'm no naysayer to the practice
>> itself. He asked if one could get sick and the answer is "yes", if
>> your partner who feeds you is carrying something nasty. My husband and
>> I have been a couple for nearly 11 years and I KNOW we are both
>> healthy. If you don't know the feeder, the risk *is* huge.
>> --
>
>This all sounds so Freudian, like we're two years old and passing through
>one of our latency phases.
>I know de Sade wrote extensively about corprophilia or whatever its
>called--he even detailed the proper diet for maximum pleasure. Rent a
>copy of Pasolini's Salo and enjoy the visual feast. But remember both men
>were laying bare the decadent excesses of a rotting society.
>
>
>There is no way I associate forcing someone to consume my excrement
>with my idea of fem supremacy. Domination /= degradation.
>
>respectfully yours....
>

>Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 15:45:39 -0800
>From: lalaura@ix.netcom.com (Laura Goodwin )
>To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
>Subject: Re: Specific training
>Message-Id: <199601032345.PAA02030@ix11.ix.netcom.com>
>
>You wrote:
>
>>There is no way I associate forcing someone to consume my excrement
>>with my idea of fem supremacy. Domination /= degradation.
>
>You are right. I must discipline myself to stop giving in to all that
>begging. :)
>--
>
>Laura Goodwin
>
>
>"Why don't you come up sometime 'n see me?"
>(Mae West)
>

>From: Chase Vogelsberg
>To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
>Subject: Re: Specific Training
>Message-Id: <199601041802.KAA26658@eskimo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>ThckHed wrote:
>> I'm also interested in hearing responses to the psychological aspect of it:
>> why is it that something I would never normally consent to, so exciting to
>> imagine being forced to do?
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> slave henry (ThckHed)
>
>I'm not really going to dwell on the medical dangers - there are definately
>some substantial risks, as a number of folks have already pointed out. The
>exact degree of risk is debatable, but potential dangers are pretty high,
>especially with a near stranger.
>
>Psychologically, it's a kind of a forbidden fruit phenomenon. Something is
>forbidden, therefore it's appealing. A lot of men go to see a professional
>dominant for the purpose of being 'forced' to do something that might cause
>guilt or shame otherwise, whether it be feminization, homosexual acts, or
>golden showers / scat.
>
>Another aspect many submissives find exciting is the humiliation, finding
>the contrast to their day-to-day lives and situations appealing, or even
>sometimes seeking it out as a form of penance. Then there's the intoxicating
>thought of being in someone else's power and control; the specifics don't
>necessarily matter, just that you've given yourself over to another.
>
>One thing to consider, is that right now the thought seems exciting to you.
>Afterwards, you may look back on what you've done, what you've allowed to
>be done to you, with considerably negative feelings - even if there is no
>physical harm done.
>
>Good luck with it.
>
>-- \_awless is : a lawless wolf, whose mind sometimes climbs to the gutter.
>-- Chase Vogelsberg (lawless@netcom.com / lawless@eskimo.com)
>--
>-- Wild at heart, with a heart of darkness

>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 10:09:08 -0800
>From: lalaura@ix.netcom.com (Laura Goodwin )
>To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
>Subject: Re: Specific Training
>Message-Id: <199601051809.KAA18699@ix4.ix.netcom.com>
>
>>One thing to consider, is that right now the thought seems exciting to
>>you. Afterwards, you may look back on what you've done, what you've
>>allowed to be done to you, with considerably negative feelings - even
>>if there is no physical harm done.
>
>There is the phenomena of post-coital regret, which is a very natural
>feeling of guilt/shame backlash that one commonly feels in post-S/M
>hours too, most especially when the sexual relationship is not a
>well-established one, or when a fresh taboo has been broken.
>
>There are different strategies for dealing with post-coital regret:
>avoid it entirely (have no sex, or only "approved" sex), prevent it by
>being very comfortable with your partner and/or the activities you
>plan, or make you mind up ahead of time to recognize the feeling and be
>philosophical about it when it comes.
>
>--
>
>Laura Goodwin
>
>
>"Why don't you come up sometime 'n see me?"
>(Mae West)

Could we flush this subject please?

grant
(Leftbrained, nitpicking, contextually harrassing, rectiliteral crocodile)

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 20:44:36 GMT
From: Peter Saxton
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate
Message-ID: <3239acc2.247485951@post.demon.co.uk>

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:18:54 -0500 , Billy wrote:
> i would imagine in England or a lot of places in Europe...
>that there are more women that would enjoy using a toilet slave

There are few who like the idea .... but once they experience it they
don't mind doing it.

>where he
>consumed from those women and licked them clean

Not very practical immediately ... I wash and clean my teeth straight
afterwards and usually the woman wants to be clean straight away and
wouldn't want a dirty tongue on her.

>some people try to tell me that it is a
>health risk... as a result of you consuming... have you ever experienced
>any ill effects as a result...

Never

peter

Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 20:58:50 GMT
From: Peter Saxton
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: One likes, the other doesn't (Re: the ultimate
Message-ID: <3239caa2.255135403@post.demon.co.uk>

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:00:07 -0700, you wrote:

>I am an american DOMME who practises golden showers for many reasons.
>The top reason being..it turns me on.

Many women like golden showers but not too many like brown showers.

peter


Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:16:02 +0100
From: robert and fiona forsythe
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: please/ more goodwill, less badwill
Message-ID:

> I suspect christianity is nothing
>more than the concoction of some AD&D dungeonmaster whose
>campaign got out of hand. It would be ludicrous except for the
>fact it has caused the death of so many, many women and the
>men who followed them.
>
>It is now time for The Great Whore to appear, magnificent
>in her wickedness, the apotheosis of iniquity and incarnation
>of depravity.
>
>Men fear Her, they quiver at Her feet
>and then.....OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!
>
>
>Imagery
>The Queen of Hearts
>
(before you get too far into this, we read Patricia's post on "please"
and we could manage quite happily along with that, we read the first few
paragraphs of Imagery's and could get along with that, BUT these lines?)

Maybe this is a joke and we are simply to far away to get it,
but speaking clearly for both of us, we are willing to accept there may
be no God, no resurrection of Christ, and that Science is a far as you
go with fact,

but go around writing this stuff and:
a) how can this change the world for the better anyway?

b) how could you suggest fs is about good will and not bad will on
this score?

c) if you write it because you are so angry at what you have seen,
maybe that is fine, but if you turn it into a belief system that you act
upon, you or those who follow on after further down the line will end up
causing as much pain as the men before.

d) if you really believe fs is about something better (and not dark
revenge), then you have to produce something attractive to all people
because for fs to really renew this world (even as some form of quasi-
humanist system), you have to enjoy the person and not the gender (the
male world was made by putting men before people, therefore fs should
not reverse the order but do really different and put people before
gender (fs would then be self-sacrificing in the way of Gandhi, women
down the ages and yes, even Christ)).

Folk have talked about a feminine v a male principle. Perhaps it is this
self sacrificing enduring quality which a few leading men have shown and
which millions of non-leading women have always shown. Now that women
can come to power, don't throw away that principle. If you are repelled
by the notion of self-sacrifice tell us about all the significant goods
that the male principle of selfish grab has achieved? One of our
problems was your line that essentially the universe was whatever I
create:
"My universe is what I define for Myself
and its beginnings are at the center of My being."
That seemed as @male@ as anything in history, does not the family at
least help to define you? Even without any God, your origins lie outside
yourself and here on fs we thought that would be warmly welcomed, as a
woman you are the ancient mother.

To be a bit forceful, our view (and it is ours, yes both of us) is that
if fs does not want something other than this medicine it will find it
hard to struggle beyond an anti men rant.
-----------------------------------------------
and folk we could manage Patricia's poem too, and Sylvia Plath is on the
bookshelf too, but honestly, if you are folk of goodwill and you want to
throw out references to forces often identified with badwill, then how
about some "commentary" on these double meanings for the sensitive men
amongst us, rather than letting us read it all literally which you would
have us believe is a male fixation.
--
fiona and robert forsythe

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 07:50:14 -0500
From: kriv@interlog.com (peter)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Delay In Messages
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I have never been or heard of a fellow Canadian being insulted by the term
"Canuck."

It's much like you would refer to an Australian as an "Aussie."

Canuck is supposedly a blending of CANada and the UK of United Kingdom.

By the way, I once read that the best way to get a Canadian angry is to ask
them to explain the Quebec separation issue (which unites the entire
country into a massive state of boredom). Or, even better, tell us we're
just like Americans ... lol.
Peter>
>
>
>On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Dee-Ann LeBlanc wrote:
>
>> Lorraine Jobin wrote:
>> >
>> > Anyway, that was the problem with the e-mail. Barry, fiona and robert, you
>> > should be getting all your mail now. We Canucks are on top of it!!!!!
>>Haha!!
>
>Thanks to everyone who replied to my message, mostly in private but a few
>on the list. Looks like there were multiple problems, including the one
>with my server. It's good to have such a caring group of friends.
>
>> Well, fortunately, the ISP I use isn't an iSTAR ISP, so the list has
>> been going on as usual. :) For those non-Canucks, iSTAR is a company
>> who has been buying up Canadian ISPs like they're candy.
>
>Welcome to the wonderful world of late-stage capitalism! At least Canada
>is not as far along the hell-bent road as is the States, but if your
>example is any indication the direction is the same.
>
>This is a bit off-topic, but my curiosity is piqued. Both of you have
>used the term "Canucks". When I lived briefly in Ontario about
>twenty-five years ago, that was a very insulting term. Have things
>changed so much that is is now acceptable?
>
>Peace,
>
>Barry
>


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 08:09:56 GMT
From: Peter Saxton
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Message-ID: <323a6417.294425602@post.demon.co.uk>

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 21:24:37 -0700 (PDT), Dee-Ann wrote:

>A nice start would be mates who are willing and _do_ chip in at least
>half of the necessary work at home. ;) Too many women are expected
>to keep the house clean, get dinner ready, chauffer the kids, raise
>the kids, etc. while too many men think this work is beneath them.
>It's the attitude of "beneath" that has to change. Not only does it
>keep them from doing their fair share of the work...it also allows
>them to see women as "beneath" them because the women _do_ do that
>work.
>
I agree. Men find it so difficult to think about doing these things
normally. Even if the do they will leave it longer than the woman. A
man alone will do chores less regularly than a woman alone usually so
it's not always that they think the woman *should* do it.

A man really needs to see it as his work and do the majority of the
chores at least so the woman can relax more and not feel so tired and
burdened. She'll then feel a lot happier and an happy woman is a
perfect woman and both men and women want that!

peter

Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:31:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: pgm@servtech.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Message-Id: <199609141531.LAA11065@cyber2.servtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:09 AM 9/14/96 GMT, Peter Saxton wrote:
>I agree. Men find it so difficult to think about doing these things
>normally. Even if the do they will leave it longer than the woman. A
>man alone will do chores less regularly than a woman alone usually so
>it's not always that they think the woman *should* do it.

Not necessarily. Some men keep a neat and clean home, it's a matter of
pride and satisfaction. As a generalization, I understand your point however.

>A man really needs to see it as his work and do the majority of the
>chores at least so the woman can relax more and not feel so tired and
>burdened. She'll then feel a lot happier and an happy woman is a
>perfect woman and both men and women want that!

Well stated, I agree wholeheartedly! Service is a wonderful thing :)

Succinctly as usual, Paul/mp

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:25:06 -0500
From: sorceress@CYBEROTI.COM
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-ID:

FE>On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 sorceress@CYBEROTI.COM wrote:

FE>> To be *perfectly* fair, you must remember that
FE>> Aristotle's position in Greek Society was that of a
FE>> "foreigner", with no status at all. He shared the
FE>> same political and economic abyss as women and slaves.
FE>> His rhetoric came from the perspective of a slave
FE>> dutiful and loving to his Master.

FE>Aristotle *was* a Greek. That he lead his life in places different than
FE>the one in which he was born did not prevent him from becoming a high
FE>status Big Shot, any more than it prevented Werner von Braun. Of course,
FE>he was conscious of his position vis a vis Alexander the Great; who (other
FE>than Diogenes) wasn't?

Aristotle was NOT a Greek. He was a toady of the State,
carrying out the State's mandates and justifying them
with classic rhetoric--He could not OWN property, nor
could he officially participate in government. His status
was the regurgitated ethos of the City-State.
CybErotiComm Online

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:24:03 -0400
From: Laura Goodwin
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Dominants and their limits (Re: Advise please)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960914172403.006908f0@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:39 PM 9/13/96 -0700, Noble wrote:
>people talk about
>subs limits all the time..well DOMMES have limits too...

This is so true. Dominants, female and male, have their limits, but little
attention is paid to that fact.

I have to deplore the image of the perfect top as someone who can do
anything with anyone with glee and unsurpassable skill. That's just what we
need: another impossible role to fill!

I tell single subs who are looking for a partner to think about what they
NEED in a realtionship, and to look for, ask for, work for, and wait for
THAT. There is always something you need that is non-negotiable. The rest
you can compromise on. I learned that I can compromise on the scat thing,
for example, to get what I *need* which is a loveable, loyal, and utterly
dependable masochistic sub spouse. If I could not compromise on the scat
thing with Bruce, it's hard to say which of us would have hit the bricks
faster. Bruce, with all his love and sacrifice, bought himself a sweet
deal. He is sure of my dominance and love. He finds himself accepting more
whipping and punishment than he might prefer, but he is my slave after all. :)
Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:24:09 -0400
From: Laura Goodwin
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960914172409.006b3e14@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 06:58 AM 9/14/96 +0100, Grant Nightingale wrote:

>There *was* some discussion around this topic, in January:

Oh, sure, but I meant *lately*! ;) You expect me to remember back that far?


Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #19
***********************************************

From - Thu Sep 12 09:10:25 1996


the Aztec had the Goddess Coatlicue (she of the serpent woven skirt).

The Celts have Brynhild

In the Tantric books of India the home of the goddess is called
Mani-dvipa (The island of jewels). She lives in the garden of wish
fulfilling trees. The beaches of the isle are of golden sand. the
waters of the ocean are the nectar of immortality. This goddes is red
with the fire of life; the earth, the solar system, the galazies of
far-extending space, all swell within her womb. She is the world
creatrix. She encompasses the encompassing, nourishes the nourishing
and is the life of everything that lives. She is the death of
everything that dies. She is the most terrible and the most good. The
whole round of existence is accomplished in her.

from the Sacred writings the Shastras of Hinduism


and, of course, Kali...The Ferry across the Ocean of Existence.
from Ramakrishna

The Nigerians have a Goddess who has no name other than the Mother of
the Gods, from Joseph Campbell...the hero with a 1,000 faces

The Spider Woman of the Southwest Native Americans is a grandmotherly
woman who lives underground and helps guide spirits both ways from the
land of the dead to the land of the living,,,and from the land of the
living to the land of the dead...the spider woman, by weaving her web
can control the movements of the Sun. Any person who comes under the
protection of this Cosmic mother cannot be harmed.


and Joseph Campbell muses:
Full circle, from the tomb of the womb to the womb of the tomb, we come:
an ambiguous, enigmatical incursion into a world of solid matter that is
soon to melt from us, like the substance of a dream...
Men through their recorded history in myth, religion and folklore seek
to be the hero .. and in all these recorded events and myths they say
ultimately that the hero is the man of self-achieved submission. But
submission to what...asks Joseph Campbell in the Hero with a thousand
Faces.....the women on this list would answer...I think, many of
us...submission to the feminine..the female..the life principle.

Patricia

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 16:31:46 1996


>
> the Aztec had the Goddess Coatlicue (she of the serpent woven skirt).
>
> The Celts have Brynhild
>
> In the Tantric books of India the home of the goddess is called
> Mani-dvipa (The island of jewels). She lives in the garden of wish
> fulfilling trees. The beaches of the isle are of golden sand. the
> waters of the ocean are the nectar of immortality. This goddes is red
> with the fire of life; the earth, the solar system, the galazies of
> far-extending space, all swell within her womb. She is the world
> creatrix. She encompasses the encompassing, nourishes the nourishing
> and is the life of everything that lives. She is the death of
> everything that dies. She is the most terrible and the most good. The
> whole round of existence is accomplished in her.
>
> from the Sacred writings the Shastras of Hinduism
>
>
> and, of course, Kali...The Ferry across the Ocean of Existence.
> from Ramakrishna

Nitpick - IndoEuropean (Pardon - I wasn't sure if this was a
refutation of my earlier posting - I'll confess to being a touch jumpy
after a post I read a moment ago that I'm not sure i shoul respond too)

> The Nigerians have a Goddess who has no name other than the Mother of
> the Gods, from Joseph Campbell...the hero with a 1,000 faces

Thank you - A good example that I -completely- spaced and have no
excuse for.

> The Spider Woman of the Southwest Native Americans is a grandmotherly
> woman who lives underground and helps guide spirits both ways from the
> land of the dead to the land of the living,,,and from the land of the
> living to the land of the dead...the spider woman, by weaving her web
> can control the movements of the Sun. Any person who comes under the
> protection of this Cosmic mother cannot be harmed.
>
>
> and Joseph Campbell muses:
> Full circle, from the tomb of the womb to the womb of the tomb, we come:
> an ambiguous, enigmatical incursion into a world of solid matter that is
> soon to melt from us, like the substance of a dream...
> Men through their recorded history in myth, religion and folklore seek
> to be the hero .. and in all these recorded events and myths they say
> ultimately that the hero is the man of self-achieved submission. But
> submission to what...asks Joseph Campbell in the Hero with a thousand
> Faces.....the women on this list would answer...I think, many of
> us...submission to the feminine..the female..the life principle.
>
> Patricia
>
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Fri Sep 13 12:56:24 1996


Well sometimes intelligent and sometimes not but to you maidpaula and to
all my sisters on this list my wish is
FOLLOW YOUR BLISS
Patricia
pgm@servtech.com wrote:
>
> At 09:33 PM 9/11/96 -0700, Patricia wrote:
> >and Joseph Campbell muses:
> >Full circle, from the tomb of the womb to the womb of the tomb, we come:
> >an ambiguous, enigmatical incursion into a world of solid matter that is
> >soon to melt from us, like the substance of a dream...
> >Men through their recorded history in myth, religion and folklore seek
> >to be the hero .. and in all these recorded events and myths they say
> >ultimately that the hero is the man of self-achieved submission. But
> >submission to what...asks Joseph Campbell in the Hero with a thousand
> >Faces.....the women on this list would answer...I think, many of
> >us...submission to the feminine..the female..the life principle.
>
> Hey, we have another Campbell fan on the list..coolness. Campbell was
> pretty insightful...for a guy ;) And you made an interesting connection
> between hero submission and the female principle. To me, this is what it's
> all about...molding/improving myself (perhaps even to hero status, but that
> seems unlikely) so that I can serve and assist the female principle more
> effectively.
>
> To continue Joseph's quote:
>
> "Submission of what?
> That is the primary virtue and deed of the hero to resolve."
>
> Sorry for the interruption....you may all return to the intellectual p*ssing
> contest/flame thing now.... Warm regards, Paul/mp
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
> For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
> mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Wed Sep 11 16:52:41 1996


Kalika wrote:

>Here is another very vital point ... that being ... what "appears" to be a
sacrifice
>(the act of submission / service) turns out to be exactly it's opposite !
>This fact needs some meditation upon it, to see one's way to reality.

When I was young I thought the expression 'It's better to give than to receive"
was
the dumbest thing imaginable. I now appreciate just how true it is. Far too
many
men live a totally selfish lifestyle and find very little fulfillment as a
result.

Is it not therefore a reverse form of selfishness for someone to expect only to
give
and therefore his partner only to receive? I deluge my girlfriend with gifts
but more
importantly provide her with emotional support in every way that I can. She's
very
appreciative, but also feels the need to give back, whenever she can. I have
to be
careful not to overdo it, or she feels uncomfortable.

So Kalika's concept of total surrender sounds wonderful to me and highly erotic
(I am a submissive), but only likely to work for a small proportion of the
population.

Kalika says if only more men were prepared to surrender. From my perspective,
if
only there were more Kalikas who would appreciate male surrender.

Jon

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Wed Sep 11 16:52:13 1996


An excellent post from robert and Fiona. I would just like to throw a couple
of things into the discussion.

1/... There's a wonderful book available from Vintage called "The Moral
Animal" , written by Robert Wright. Offers an intriguing look into the new
science of Evolutionary Psychology. How did we evolve the social-sexual
patterns that we see today? In a nutshell, Wright points out that in our
species women look to men to provide resources for the successful rearing of
children. The evolutionary pressure in that direction is obvious. Thus
Women need to bind men to them to keep them providing resources until the
children are grown enough to be independent, which biologically is not much
before the age of 12-15. Men, on the other hand, can serve their genes
better if they move on to another woman much sooner, say when the children
are only 5-7. We can see the outline right there for a lot of the social and
sexual tension within human society. We can also see the basis of the urge
towards polygamy in many societies, whereby wealthy men can maintain several
wives and their children. These women are better off in terms of resources
than they would be with a poor man of their own. In the west we have
banished polygamy and instead we have seen serial monogamy arise in its
place where wealthy, successful men go through wives one after the other,
picking younger women each time and monopolizing them in their most sexually
productive years. Wright makes the argument that this is the worst case
possible for women! Especially with no-fault divorce and no alimony!
FS could be seen as one way for women to prevent serial monogamy with all of
its social evils-- abandoned families etc.

2/... Regarding a new economic basis for FS society, such as households of
three women and their submissive husbands:...Might it not be a better idea
to pick up on Hillary Clinton's theme-- It takes a village! Most women like
to organize and decorate their homes their way. Laura Goodwin makes the
point that the petty "queendoms" of house and home are what's been left to
women in late capitalist society, but I wonder if there isn't some deeper
"Moral Animal" psychology at work here. Are we pack animals, ready to obey
an Alpha Female? Or semi-monogamous members of a tribe or clan? Perhaps the
FS social ideal would be a tight knit village, where the women each have
seperate homes, but they come together cooperatively in matters of work,
child rearing, education etc. Of course who does what work in any individual
FS home would be a matter to be worked out between a dominant woman and her
submissive man. Sex would remain the fundamental basis for female-male
relations.

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 16:31:13 1996


>
> oh the killer sperm is quite real....was all over pbs and nova....
> they showed pictures of them and the difference....some are very active
> swimmers...those are the ones who make babies and many just sit waiting
> for sperm to come by and then they go right into them and kill
> them...was fascinating to watch...
> yup it is true
> Patricia
>
Hmm - I need to see this - I thought that the lifetime of a sperm
cell was very short - Do I remember wrong (Entirely possible, It's been
years) or do these cells live for a longer period providing some sort of
evolutionary contraception. I suppose it would be entirely possible for
the male sex drive to become linked (in part) to the length of time their
contraceptive sperm lived on average, ie your sperm lived for three days
providing coverage, you find yourself getting horny about every 72 hours
or so, your sperm live for 24 hours, etc . .
It actually might explain the trait of some men to get horny (I
apologize for this technical language - ) upon finding out
that they've been cheated on - kinda a (I don't -believe- I'm typing
this, but it seems logical) sperm ABM to intercept the 'enemy' genetic
sperm before an egg is inseminated. If it only worked one time out of a
hundred that might be a sufficient evolutionary advantage for it to
spread.
Interesting theory anyway. I've never quite understood that, but
I'm a monogamous type myself (He say's as if he's had as many as one
female interested any time lately - )
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 16:31:50 1996


jet wrote:
>
> I've read something about this, and also have seen it made fun of in
> several movies about making babies ("9 Months" is one that comes to
> mind). I believe the theory is: if a male eats certain foods for
> a period of time before he fertilizes a woman, he will produce more of
> the sperm with either an x or a y chromosome. So, for instance, if he
> eats more meat, he will produce more y chromosomes or if he eats mroe
> vegies or maybe chichen, he will produce more x chromosomes.

Just a little humor here, but true humor. Male fighter pilots tend to
produce girls. This is apparently because of the G-forces they go
through. My husband jokes that I'm going to put him through a
centrafuge if we ever decide to get down to the business of conceiving
a child.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Wed Sep 11 16:52:18 1996

------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
Re: good and bad will
Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Sex & Housework
Re: good and bad will
Re: Guests of Hers
Re:Good&Bad Will
Re: Guests of Hers
Re: Sex & Housework (Re: FS Households...FSUtopia??)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 17:01:51 -0700
From: Patricia
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: good and bad will
Message-ID: <32335E6F.4ED3@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

strong hugs of support for you Leather, you said it good...I was not
going to touch it for a couple of days..brought up pretty emotional
stuff...and I could not have said it as well...
Keep the Faith Woman...we are increasing in numbers and if your post is
any indication in eloquence as well.
Patricia


leather wrote:
>
> kriv wrote:
>
> >I feel FS has nothing to do with religion, economics etc.
>
> Kind of like an ignition having nothing to with the car?
>
> >It has to do with
> >a relationship between a man and a woman. A very intricate relationship, we
> >all agree. And it all comes down to one thing: sex.
>
> I disagree. I feel FS is an all-encompassing frame of mind. If a female
> restricts Her supremacy to the bedroom, isn't that merely a "role" in a
> fantasy game? This is not My conception of Female Supremacy!!!
>
> It is also *not* limited to the relationship between a man and a Woman! It
> has to do with empowerment of all females! It has to do with *not* being
> controlled by men (or women) to the point where She loses Her self and
> sacrifices Her power!
>
> Boiling it all down to one thing: sex, is limiting your potential to give
> of yourself in order to create a mutually pleasant environment! I keep
> thinking back on previous postings to this list that related the gender
> differences (male manipulation of the female to get what he wants: sex...
> to the point of "pushing" and the analogy of women being content in a field
> of flowers) and Patricia's disturbing... but true... stats on Domestic
> Violence.
>
> When a female dabbles with FS, she is setting Herself up to change Her
> whole life and thinking for the better! It may start in the bedroom but
> will no doubt seep into every corner of Her mind and every aspect of Her
> life! MORE power to HER! Of course, I've considered the good/bad will
> posting (which was very good) and assumed it is for the good.
>
> >Who is in control here? Is a dominant woman so much in need of her
> >submissive man that she will do anything to keep him?
>
> Not as much as My submissive (and actually all of society) is in need of
> Me. If I can bring about one ort of change in the way "people" treat women
> or the way women allow themselves to be treated... then I am needed (and I
> strive to accomplish this daily).
>
> >Will she give in to his sexual desires and quirks so that he will be happy
> >and >will remain with her?
>
> I would never deliberately "give in" to anything for the sole purpose of
> his happiness but I like to think that I have enough of an open mind to try
> those suggestions that genuinely arouse *My* interest! (You must have this
> list confused with aol or CoDA!?!) I'm not saying that men are disposable
> but if his happiness is the catalyst without thought or pursuit of Her
> own... go now and betray yourself no more!
>
> >Is she then relegating herself to the role of a whore?
>
> Most definately... be careful here. "Female Supremacy" is the name of the
> list you are treading and I haven't encountered any female participants who
> fit your previous or following descriptions.
>
> >Or:
>
> >Who is in control here? Is a dominant woman so attuned to her power and
> >sexuality and is a man such a crude sexual creature that she can use this
> >sexuality to get him to do whatever she wishes?
>
> Peter... I sense a desperate need for you to disprove your past experiences
> and male reality. Unfortunately, I'm not the one to do it. I am not
> eloquent enough or invested, in you, enough to enlighten your perceptions!
> Please... close your eyes and try to look at the world through the crack in
> your reality that got you here!... here's a hug ((((*)))) to ease your
> confusion and anger that you may be wrong about FS theory/motivation!
>
> If you want to learn more, sit down, open your mind, and just learn it!
>
> Emerging Women's Reality in a White Male Society,
> Leather
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
> leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
> \ /
> http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
> \/Y\/
> http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
> _____/__\______
> toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
> For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
> mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:10:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-Id: <199609082310.SAA25803@indy2.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3864

First of all, please allow me to apologize in advance for any
offense I might give, or rehashing what may be old hat for this mailing
list. I will confess to having joined this list out of my curious nature,
not due to any intrinsic belief in the 'superiority' of either gender
over the other, and may be operating from different basic assumptions
than others on this list. If this is so, and I phrase someting in a
offensive or impolite manner, I apologize.
(And now onto my offensive and impolite commentary - )
I've read this list for all of a few days now, and although the
commentary is interesting, it looks (to me) as if the primary goal is the
(valid) recognition of the fact that there is no intrinsic weakness of
the female that should result in a societal judgment of women being
somehow 'incapable' or unable to take a place alongside (Or, judging from
the listname, above - ) men in government, business, et al.
I agree with this, as far as it goes. What I do not understand is
why the desire (or justification) for a 'gynosupremist' society, as
oppposed to an egalitarian one in which -neither- gender is judged solely
on the basis of it's gender.
Not (as far as I can tell from my admittedly short period of
receiving mail) revenge. Those on this list do not appear to be so
unbalanced as to believe that revenge is an appropriate motivation for
restructering a society.
Not (In my limited experience) any intrinsic superiority of the
female mind, intelligence, empathy, or conscience, over the male mind.
While I might (or might not) concede that the average female might have
more capacity for these positive attributes than the average male, the
overlap is so high that, if I was to base a society on such things, I
would judge individuals by -their- capacities for these attributes, not
their gender.
By the same token, the negative things in those who fight to keep
power are not somehow absent from the female mind. Greed, hunger for
power for it's own sake, intellectual (and other) dishonesty, disrespect
for the feelings of others, bigotry, et al, are not things somehow left
to men to employ by ourselves. There would appear (Unfortunately) to be
plenty of negatives to share between the genders.
The only other possible explanation that -I- can imagine would be
some belief that the worldviews of the genders are -so- inherently
incompatible somehow, that it isn't possible for an egalitarian society
to form, that only one or the other gender can be in power at a time.
While sometimes attractive (Usually when I'm trying talk to an attractive
female - ), this theory doesn't hold up particularly well to
inspection. Childbearing is the one primary physical difference between
men and women, and the fact is that both parents do love the child. If we
were of some species where the males impregnated the females only when
they were in heat, then left, never to see the females or young again, I
could believe that this single difference would be enough to keep the
worldviews that far apart. However that -isn't- the case, men (Most Men)
do choose to mate with women they love, and -do- love their children.
Their choices for the future -are- based on what they believe is best for
their wife and child. While the worldview may be different (I'm sure it
is) it's not -that- different.
So why would one wish to assume the position of superiority over
those who are best regarded as equals? Or what am I missing that -does-
establish the female gender as intrinsically superior?
Jonnan West

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:33:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: pgm@servtech.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Sex & Housework
Message-Id: <199609082333.TAA27056@cyber2.servtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:59 PM 9/8/96 -0400, Laura Goodwin wrote:
>Speaking of housework and same-sex couples, male couples and multiple
>households of gay men tend to solve these difficulties easier than hetero
>male roommates do. The pattern with het males seems to be to let everything
>go to hell, unless they have women coming over, which inspires a frenzy of
>emergency cleaning procedures. :) Single het males living alone don't mind
>cleaning up after themselves, but give 'em a roommate and it's a contest to
>see who notices the dust last!

Single het males living alone don't have much of a choice in the matter.
I've lived alone for about fourteen years now and if I don't do it
(cleaning, laundry, home repairs, cooking, etc), it ain't gonna get done ;)
As a fortuitous result however, I hope that my vast domestic experience has
prepared me adequately to care for a Lady and our household someday....I've
had a lot of practice.

>I can dig a woman who is domestically "casual", though. Why should women
>expend so much precious energy and creativity on drudge-work? Home should
>be a haven, not a sweat-shop!

That's what maid's are for (be they professional ones or the
more....mmmmmm.....devoted ones), to make women's life a bit easier so she
can concentrate on more important matters.

>Numbers-wise, guys are probably as likely as gals to be fastidious, and have
>been known to carry it to absurd degrees. I have one bachelor friend who is
>constantly cleaning, and when he couldn't get a spot to come out of his
>kitchen floor, *he replaced the flooring*.

I like neatness and cleanliness, but I'm not *that* compulsive about it ;)

>Gimmee some slaves like that
>guy! If the women wake up and breakfast is cooked, if they sit at the
>'puter to work and the coffee is right there, if the house always smells of
>fresh furniture polish, if the seat is always down and the curtains are
>always dust-free, I don't think you'd have too many struggles. :)

Sounds like my house, except I haven't figured out yet how to cook breakfast
while I'm still asleep ;)

Sorry, I couldn't resist replying, Paul/maidpaula (got the uniform and
everything...just need to buy a feather duster :)





___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:35:35 -0500
From: kriv@interlog.com (peter)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: good and bad will
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Leather:
An extremely well-thought response. However, I disagree with your final
paragraphs.
I apologize for not saying that my original post was not my idea of an FS
relationship.
I was just bringing forth what I perceive is society's view of such a
relationship. And, while I believe what you say is the situation with all
women in this forum, I believe they are by far the vast minority.
Don't shoot, me, I'm only the messenger.
peter (kriv)>
>
>kriv wrote:
>
>>I feel FS has nothing to do with religion, economics etc.
>
>Kind of like an ignition having nothing to with the car?
>
>>It has to do with
>>a relationship between a man and a woman. A very intricate relationship, we
>>all agree. And it all comes down to one thing: sex.
>
>I disagree. I feel FS is an all-encompassing frame of mind. If a female
>restricts Her supremacy to the bedroom, isn't that merely a "role" in a
>fantasy game? This is not My conception of Female Supremacy!!!
>
>It is also *not* limited to the relationship between a man and a Woman! It
>has to do with empowerment of all females! It has to do with *not* being
>controlled by men (or women) to the point where She loses Her self and
>sacrifices Her power!
>
>Boiling it all down to one thing: sex, is limiting your potential to give
>of yourself in order to create a mutually pleasant environment! I keep
>thinking back on previous postings to this list that related the gender
>differences (male manipulation of the female to get what he wants: sex...
>to the point of "pushing" and the analogy of women being content in a field
>of flowers) and Patricia's disturbing... but true... stats on Domestic
>Violence.
>
>When a female dabbles with FS, she is setting Herself up to change Her
>whole life and thinking for the better! It may start in the bedroom but
>will no doubt seep into every corner of Her mind and every aspect of Her
>life! MORE power to HER! Of course, I've considered the good/bad will
>posting (which was very good) and assumed it is for the good.
>
>>Who is in control here? Is a dominant woman so much in need of her
>>submissive man that she will do anything to keep him?
>
>Not as much as My submissive (and actually all of society) is in need of
>Me. If I can bring about one ort of change in the way "people" treat women
>or the way women allow themselves to be treated... then I am needed (and I
>strive to accomplish this daily).
>
>>Will she give in to his sexual desires and quirks so that he will be happy
>>and >will remain with her?
>
>I would never deliberately "give in" to anything for the sole purpose of
>his happiness but I like to think that I have enough of an open mind to try
>those suggestions that genuinely arouse *My* interest! (You must have this
>list confused with aol or CoDA!?!) I'm not saying that men are disposable
>but if his happiness is the catalyst without thought or pursuit of Her
>own... go now and betray yourself no more!
>
>>Is she then relegating herself to the role of a whore?
>
>
>Most definately... be careful here. "Female Supremacy" is the name of the
>list you are treading and I haven't encountered any female participants who
>fit your previous or following descriptions.
>
>>Or:
>
>>Who is in control here? Is a dominant woman so attuned to her power and
>>sexuality and is a man such a crude sexual creature that she can use this
>>sexuality to get him to do whatever she wishes?
>
>Peter... I sense a desperate need for you to disprove your past experiences
>and male reality. Unfortunately, I'm not the one to do it. I am not
>eloquent enough or invested, in you, enough to enlighten your perceptions!
>Please... close your eyes and try to look at the world through the crack in
>your reality that got you here!... here's a hug ((((*)))) to ease your
>confusion and anger that you may be wrong about FS theory/motivation!
>
>If you want to learn more, sit down, open your mind, and just learn it!
>
>Emerging Women's Reality in a White Male Society,
>Leather
>
>
>
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
>leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
> \ /
>http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
> \/Y\/
>http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
> _____/__\______
>toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689
>
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 17:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Guests of Hers
Message-Id: <199609090052.RAA00165@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1424

Micah L. Martin wrote:
>
> Dee-Ann has not said that she thinks of this list as being in any way
> analogous to her home, and hence it is hardly clear that insisting on this
> characterization on her behalf is an act of supererogatory courtesy.

You seem to insist on speaking for me, though. No, I have never
said that this list is analogous to my home. However, in the past,
when there have been problems with too much traffic bogging down my
system, the people here have been great about helping me out by
cutting down on traffic until the problem has been solved. I suspect
it is this type of thing zbobz was talking about.

> In any case, the particular form of courtesy which consists of telling
> people something false, and which one knows to be false, is not really in
> my mind a way of respecting someone, so i hope you will not insist i
> indulge in this particular kind of false "courtesy". Of course, it may have
> been possible for me to have phrased the matter differently, but the same
> could be said about others on this thread, or on other threads on this
> list.

I highly doubt zbobz was trying to be misleading.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Sep 96 21:24:33 -0500
From: New User
To: femsupremacy
Subject: Re:Good&Bad Will
Message-Id: <9609090129.AA15855@mhv.net>
content-length: 2999

-- [ From: New User * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] --

An excellent post from robert and Fiona. I would just like to throw a couple
of things into the discussion.

1/... There's a wonderful book available from Vintage called "The Moral
Animal" , written by Robert Wright. Offers an intriguing look into the new
science of Evolutionary Psychology. How did we evolve the social-sexual
patterns that we see today? In a nutshell, Wright points out that in our
species women look to men to provide resources for the successful rearing of
children. The evolutionary pressure in that direction is obvious. Thus
Women need to bind men to them to keep them providing resources until the
children are grown enough to be independent, which biologically is not much
before the age of 12-15. Men, on the other hand, can serve their genes
better if they move on to another woman much sooner, say when the children
are only 5-7. We can see the outline right there for a lot of the social and
sexual tension within human society. We can also see the basis of the urge
towards polygamy in many societies, whereby wealthy men can maintain several
wives and their children. These women are better off in terms of resources
than they would be with a poor man of their own. In the west we have
banished polygamy and instead we have seen serial monogamy arise in its
place where wealthy, successful men go through wives one after the other,
picking younger women each time and monopolizing them in their most sexually
productive years. Wright makes the argument that this is the worst case
possible for women! Especially with no-fault divorce and no alimony!
FS could be seen as one way for women to prevent serial monogamy with all of
its social evils-- abandoned families etc.

2/... Regarding a new economic basis for FS society, such as households of
three women and their submissive husbands:...Might it not be a better idea
to pick up on Hillary Clinton's theme-- It takes a village! Most women like
to organize and decorate their homes their way. Laura Goodwin makes the
point that the petty "queendoms" of house and home are what's been left to
women in late capitalist society, but I wonder if there isn't some deeper
"Moral Animal" psychology at work here. Are we pack animals, ready to obey
an Alpha Female? Or semi-monogamous members of a tribe or clan? Perhaps the
FS social ideal would be a tight knit village, where the women each have
seperate homes, but they come together cooperatively in matters of work,
child rearing, education etc. Of course who does what work in any individual
FS home would be a matter to be worked out between a dominant woman and her
submissive man. Sex would remain the fundamental basis for female-male
relations.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 21:44:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micah L. Martin"
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Guests of Hers
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Dee-Ann LeBlanc wrote:

> Micah L. Martin wrote:

> > Dee-Ann has not said that she thinks of this list as being in any way
> > analogous to her home, and hence it is hardly clear that insisting on this
> > characterization on her behalf is an act of supererogatory courtesy.

> You seem to insist on speaking for me, though.

Where?

> > In any case, the particular form of courtesy which consists of telling
> > people something false, and which one knows to be false, is not really in
> > my mind a way of respecting someone, so i hope you will not insist i
> > indulge in this particular kind of false "courtesy". Of course, it may have
> > been possible for me to have phrased the matter differently, but the same
> > could be said about others on this thread, or on other threads on this
> > list.

> I highly doubt zbobz was trying to be misleading.

My point was that for me to claim that this list was in any way analogous
to your house would mean *i* was being misleading, since i don't think it
is.

One of the pleasures of a list such as this is that people may not always
agree on everything. Why not enjoy the variety?

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 21:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Sex & Housework (Re: FS Households...FSUtopia??)
Message-Id: <199609090459.VAA00397@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 5640

Laura Goodwin wrote:
>
> There a lot of truth to this. Most of the women I know, "dominant" or not,
> are very jealous of their household queendoms. I suspect it may have a lot
> to do with the way patriarchal society has granted us only the tiny domestic
> sphere as our undisputed territory. As little as we've got, as much as we
> have to fight for more, the _one place_ that women do not want to struggle
> for dominance is in their own damn households! Our power to decide
> decorating, menu, and child care matters goes mostly unquestioned, until
> another woman gets involved...

I think it could work with the right combination of people. A neat
freak is going to want to be in charge of making sure the house is
clean to her satisfaction. Some with a flair for decorating is going
to want to/enjoy being in charge of making sure the house is arranged
perfectly. A woman with a gourmet palate will want to be sure that
the food meets her tastes. As long as you combine folks who's life's
passion doesn't collide direction with someone else's life's passion
you can probably get along just fine. Just make sure that the neat
freak's kitchen cleaners understand not to wash out the gourmet's cast
iron pots with soap. :) I do think it would take the right kind of
personalities to be able to do this, though. Someone who wants to be
in total control of everything would likely be unhappy in this kind of
arrangement.

> I once lived with a Lesbian lover, and dominance was settled from the
> beginning, so my taste prevailed until the relationship began to sour. I
> knew the honeymoon was over when she moved the furniture around in the
> living room without asking me first! ;)

Hehe. Well, I find I can get kind of laid back. I think I would
function well as being in charge of one facet of a household, as long
as my needs/tastes were at least somewhat considered in the bigger
picture. However, I wouldn't want it to be my sole job in life!
Certainly, the house "matriarchs" wouldn't be bound to only work in
the house. That would be just their home responsibilities. Just as
carrying out their tasks would be the home responsibilities of those
who served them. Just some thoughts sparked mostly from other posts
on the subject.

[some deleted]

> I envision a workable scenario, where one woman is designated the household
> manager, and she delegates chores. Another way is to get the women of the
> house together for meetings where household management is accomplished by
> committee, perhaps with a rotating supervisor's position.

That could work. Especially if no one in the group "loved" doing
household management duty. Then, everyone would know what a pain it
was, and everyone would respect the work that goes into it and the
cooperation necessary to make it work.

> Speaking of housework and same-sex couples, male couples and multiple
> households of gay men tend to solve these difficulties easier than hetero
> male roommates do. The pattern with het males seems to be to let everything
> go to hell, unless they have women coming over, which inspires a frenzy of
> emergency cleaning procedures. :) Single het males living alone don't mind
> cleaning up after themselves, but give 'em a roommate and it's a contest to
> see who notices the dust last!

I had a boyfriend once who lived with 4 other men. He's actually a
neat freak, but after a while he couldn't stand doing the work of 5
people. So, he stopped and just basically kept his room clean and
washed his own dishes. I remember going to help out with the cleaning
when they moved out. Ack! I think part of this problem is that het
men still have that monkey on their back of "a man doesn't do
housecleaning." It's easy to overcome when you live alone, no one
sees you doing it. :)

> Not that there aren't any slob women, mind you! I have known lots of women
> who were lovely people that could visit me anytime, but I wouldn't go to
> their house without a moon-suit! Still, is considered "unfeminine" to be
> untidy, eh, what? And being a slob, even filthy, is tolerated more easily
> in males...eh, what?

Hehe. My grandmother was a neat freak. My aunt is a neat freak. My
mother is tidy, but considered the slob of the family. I kind of take
more after my mom. Lately, though, I seem to go in and out of
cleaning mode. Possibly because I'm having to cut back time on my
computer (which I work at as well as goof around on) due to various
reasons, and I find myself looking around my house going, "You know, I
think it's time to go rearrange those book so they're on those shelves
in alphebetical order, by subject."

> I can dig a woman who is domestically "casual", though. Why should women
> expend so much precious energy and creativity on drudge-work? Home should
> be a haven, not a sweat-shop!

My grandmother-in-law cleans every day. Vacuums every day. Dusts
every day. Does laundry every day. She lives in a postage stamp of
an apartment. I suspect it's a combination of coming from a
generation that was expected to keep a perfect house, and being
retired. Though, the woman has far more of a social life than I do!
I think some folks just can't stand to see their place not perfectly
clean. Gives them a kind of sense of peace.

Dee-Ann
who seems recently to be inspired to make long, rambling posts :)

___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #4
**********************************************

From - Fri Sep 13 12:56:38 1996


On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:38:45 -0700 (PDT), Jet wrote:

>peter--
>
>>One of the main reasons why more women don't reach positions of power
>>is they tend to spread themselves too thinly while men tend to
>>concentrate on a subject and ignore other things.
>
>This is true...that's why women need subs/slaves to do the things
>that usually take up time when we could be doing things that help
>promote Female Supremacy.
>
Most of my girlfriends have not been feminists never mind female
supremacists and I would never dare announce that I was submissive to
women for fear of being thought a weirdo! My way would be more subtle,
getting a woman drinks, massaging her feet, offering to do the
shopping, washing up, cleaning, etc. I can't think of one woman who
didn't accept the situation and didn't take full advantage of it. I
think most people believe in equality at work and I'm sure that
practically all women would go along with female supremacy at home but
I don't see how the majority of men are going to be convinced unless
women insist on the equality of their children.

>>Although I agree that women are superior to men I can't imagine how
>>the world will develop. Will it just be like today but with as many
>>women in positions of power as men are now and more men will have the
>>lowly jobs .... or will society grant women some institutionalised
>>power? My guess is the former.
>
>I think that society will grant men some institutionalized power, myself.
>:)
>
>Jet
>
I promise I didn't mean it the way it sounded! :-)

peter

Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Fri Sep 13 12:56:26 1996

peter--

>I don't think that men think about it that deeply even when they do
>try to make it difficult for women.

Probably not as most seem to mindlessly go through life instead of
mindfully. I mean most people, not just men, which is why women
have such a hard time getting a stronghold in patriarchal society,
and it would probably be the same in a matriarchal society. Remember
Phyllis Schaffley (I think that was her name).

>One of the main reasons why more women don't reach positions of power
>is they tend to spread themselves too thinly while men tend to
>concentrate on a subject and ignore other things.

This is true...that's why women need subs/slaves to do the things
that usually take up time when we could be doing things that help
promote Female Supremacy.

>Although I agree that women are superior to men I can't imagine how
>the world will develop. Will it just be like today but with as many
>women in positions of power as men are now and more men will have the
>lowly jobs .... or will society grant women some institutionalised
>power? My guess is the former.

I think that society will grant men some institutionalized power, myself.
:)

Jet

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 16:31:22 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: please
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re: "The Matriarchy"
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re: Good&Bad Will
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Re: Good&Bad Will
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re: God/Goddess Worship


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 19:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Barry Emerson Wright
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
cc: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Jonnan West wrote:

> The danger is the mob mentality that might accompany such a situation.
> Study history. The French Terror, The rise of the Nazi Movement in
> Germany, even the Protestant/Catholic wars in England, prove that I don't
> need to fear the people I know. It's the people caught up in the
> emotional backlash of the moment that -don't- know me that I need to be
> afraid of.

As one who has studied a bit of history, Jonnan, I agree with the
examples you have pointed out. But these revolutions were made by people
in more desperate straits than most of us can imagine. Terror, hatred
and suffering produce extreme reactions, and very predictable results.
While I do not confidently predict a FS revolution in the near
future, I firmly believe that if/when it does happen it will not be out of
desperation but because of the efforts of the best women (and perhaps
men) among us. Ever notice how the history teachers always attribute the
success of the American Revolution (and while I am well aware of its
shortcomings, I regard it as a major step forward) to the fortunate
gathering of some of the best (male) minds of the era in one location?
Today, due to improved communications, we can bring the best from *everywhere*
together. In this case it's females speaking, and it's happening now.


> Billions? With all due respect, Look at Nasa's Budget. One of the
> few profitable pursuits made by the US government, and it's essentially
> stagnent, and has been since before Challenger.
> One of the few times we didn't hurt a thing, made an immense
> profit from the information brought back, and it's stagnent Milady.

OK, I'll go into the nitpick mode here on an unrelated subject.
The government claimed that in the last fiscal year 22% of the federal
budget was spent on "defense" (I always thought the pre-1950s "Department
of War" was much more honest). Did you know that it is the Department of
Energy that designs and builds nuclear weapons, and that a good part of the
grants from the Department of Education are funneled into military
research? Or that the interest on the National Debt caused by the
military and the cost of the many "black budget" (secret project) items are
never factored in? In the case of NASA the majority of its funding and
launches are allocated to military spy or communications satellites, and
even many of the experiments done on the shuttle are for military purposes.

Peace,

Barry

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:37:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: imagery@biddeford.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: please
Message-Id: <199609120237.WAA19919@mail.biddeford.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 07:23 PM 9/11/96 -0700, you wrote:
>show a little respect for those here who do not believe in your god or
>gods....you keep on speaking in absolutes....like you know the truth and
>those who believe differently are stupid..or off base....just cause it
>was written in some damn old book...hell Mein Kampf is a book too.
>in matriarchy their will be room for people to believe what they believe
>and no room for shoving what you believe down someone elses throat...or
>anything else for that matter.
>snip...

>Patricia

Thanks, Patricia...I was beginning to feel like I was being
forced into a revival meeting. I neither worship nor give
credence to a male god, nor will I ever bow my knee to one,
or to any male for that matter. As for matriarchy, I personally
do not care for that term, as it is just the reverse side
of patriarchy and has the makings of a dictatorship.

I believe women to be superior and far wiser than those males
who need to use force to rule. I do not need or want
equality nor do I intend to beg for absolution
from some illusory notion of sin. I do not embrace sin, the devil
or any other manifestation of someone's distorted explanation of
life and the universe. My universe is what I define for Myself
and its beginnings are at the center of My being.

Too long have we, as women, been taught to see our lives,
our beginnings and our destinies, defined by patriarchal
thought. We then endured subjugation by males who have used
necromancy (death of christ,cult of martyrs etc.)
to trick us into believing in some feigned notion
of inborn wickedness. I suspect christianity is nothing
more than the concoction of some AD&D dungeonmaster whose
campaign got out of hand. It would be ludicrous except for the
fact it has caused the death of so many, many women and the
men who followed them.

It is now time for The Great Whore to appear, magnificent
in her wickedness, the apotheosis of iniquity and incarnation
of depravity.

Men fear Her, they quiver at Her feet
and then.....OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!


Imagery
The Queen of Hearts

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:56:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micah L. Martin"
To: morte@interlog.com
cc: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 morte@interlog.com wrote:

> Micah L. Martin wrote:

> > > To be fair - the -major- instigator of the 2000 years or so of
> > > Patriarchal BS was not the Romans Per Se. It was Aristotle. Along with a
> > > number of other factors of course, Aristotle however was a male
> > > chauvinist.

> > Aristotle didn't invent any of that, however. It was how he was raised; it
> > is what the Greek society of his time was thoroughly permeated with.

> He sure as hell did! "form and substance" = 2000 of bullshit !!

Aristotelean metaphysics is not the same thing as Greek notions of the
relations between the sexes, which long anteceded Aristotle. Aristotle
simply did not invent the male supremism of the Greeks.

> Save your breath!

I'm simply pointing out a fact; sorry if it pinches.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 23:01:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micah L. Martin"
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 sorceress@CYBEROTI.COM wrote:

> To be *perfectly* fair, you must remember that
> Aristotle's position in Greek Society was that of a
> "foreigner", with no status at all. He shared the
> same political and economic abyss as women and slaves.
> His rhetoric came from the perspective of a slave
> dutiful and loving to his Master.

Aristotle *was* a Greek. That he lead his life in places different than
the one in which he was born did not prevent him from becoming a high
status Big Shot, any more than it prevented Werner von Braun. Of course,
he was conscious of his position vis a vis Alexander the Great; who (other
than Diogenes) wasn't?

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:09:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: "The Matriarchy"
Message-Id: <199609120309.WAA15853@indy1.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 9103

>
> Jonnan West wrote:
> >
> > This presupposes that fear of losing power is some intellectually
> > or emotionally logical position. A Bully is a Bully because he or she (I
> > know from personal experience that they come in both varieties) is so
> > fearful of being hurt that they cannot -stand- the thought of someone
> > being strong enough to hurt them, (And in my experience BTW, there is
> > usually -some- logical motivation for this - Most often a abusive
> > relationship) and they therefore make sure to keep anyone who might be so
> > capable either A- In awe of them, or B- Labelled (or Beaten) in such a
> > way as to keep them down from them.
>
> The sad thing, however, is that if the bully is a young boy, people
> just shake their heads and go, "Tsk tsk, boys will be boys." If the
> bully's a girl, then she's often chastized for not being ladylike and
> nice and sweet and pink and frills. So, the boy bullies are basically
> told what they're doing is ok. The girl bullies are perhaps driven
> more to it because they feel they can't even be proper girls. Where
> does that get anyone? It gets us a society where guys feel it's right
> and proper to be bullies if they're so inclined. Business, politics,
> etc. are full of them.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. The Bullies you had to
look out for in -either- case (IME) were the ones that adults just simply
could -not- believe might do such a thing. And it was much easier for a
girl to convince adults of such a thing than a boy.
Make of it what you will. I'm sure this can come off as some
Patriarchal contempt for the possibility that a girl could hurt a boy, or
that a girl -would- hurt a boy, but I've seen it happen. Mind you,
generally not to -that- extent (I honestly wonder if the girl in question
might not have been an actual case of a sociopath. She fit the definition
one gets from the media at any rate. I never got hurt but once, and was
bright enough to steer the hell away from her and encourage anyone I knew
to as well, but in retrospect she scares me more know than she did then)
but even my little sister knew she could sweettalk her way through stuff
that woulda gotten my butt blistered - .

> > None of which reflects on the abilities of the Bully. He/She may
> > be intelligent, strong, charismatic, in their own right (Indeed often
> > are. Most Bullies get that way because other Bullies at one time
> > perceived them as some sort of threat. In My Experience anyway), However
> > their inner lack of confidence forces them to bully others to avoid being
> > bullied. That a Patriarchal (Androarchal?) society is inherently a
> > society based on this form of bullheadedness I have no qualms conceding.
> > I just don't see that a Matriarchal (Gynarchal - Whatever) society would
> > be any improvement. I've -met- female bullies. The are -just- as screwy
> > as male bullies. The argument does not stand.
>
> Agreed. Bullies are often low in self esteem, self worth, or self
> confidence deep down. The problem is that they turn that into causing
> people around them to feel the same way. Kind of "Misery loves
> company" in a highly antisocial form. And, yes, bullies exist in both
> genders. However, IMO in a matriarchal society it would be less
> tolerated.

Erg . . . Without actually trying it I can't say. It -could- be
that your right, I can see arguments for and against it. My -intuition-
is that in a Matriarchal society females would be allowed and men would
be in the category women are in (I.e. - Fewer, but nastier when they
arise). The only example I can come up with off the top of my head is in
one of the Polynesian peoples, and men are certainly treated like dirt in
it, (Sorry - can't remember details off the top of my head) but one
sample doth not a statistical chart make. It's also a very primitive
tribe as well, not even in good parallel with early europe.
I suppose to -know- we'd have to actually -try- it, and if I'm
-right- then the women would be just as stubborn about giving up power as
the men are today, and I'm not -that- anxious about proving myself right
-

> A friend used a term I found rather interested the other day: "Female
> Pre-Eminence." Her personal beliefs are that women aren't,
> themselves, "superior" to anyone. They're more that those things
> which fall into the "feminine" are beyond necessary to keep those
> things which are considered "masculine" in check. She feels that
> which is "feminine" (I think, after talking with her about this for a
> while) should have slightly higher value, so it can stand against the
> more aggressive "masculine." I think sometimes the folks who focus on
> "women" and "men" are being too literal. I personally think in terms
> of "feminine" and "masculine," both of which are in all of us. That's
> why I tried to ask someone to list what they consider "Feminine" and
> "Masculine," but it was once again taken too literally. This isn't a
> new principle, check out the Yin and the Yang.
>
> > I -hate- to argue semantics, but I'm not -quite- sure what your
> > intention is here. Do you mean that (In a fair contest) Any woman would
> > beat any male, that the average woman would beat the average male, that
> > some women would beat some men (I don't doubt tis true) or what? I can be
> > beaten by some males in my best abilities, and by some women. Why would I
> > suppress the women and not the men? I do my best, in -any- arena, against
> > any competition, to win with honor, or to lose having fought well and
> > honorably. Winning is funner (Actually, losing to a student may be funner
> > yet, but that's a different argument - ), but I'd rather lose
> > having fought well than win dishonorably. (Ye Gods. I sound like Jonnan,
> > Son of Mogh - )
>
> Some folks consider anyone who considers themselves to be a woman, a
> woman. So, if you had a massively built weightlifter, born male,
> considering himself to be a woman...well, there you go. I know, more
> games of semantics, but so many folks here seem to enjoy them so
> much. I wish people would focus more on what folks mean instead of
> what they're literally saying (not directed at you in particular,
> Jonnan, more at the group in general). Jonnan at least will admit
> that he may not be following the meaning, and tries to reply as best
> he can according to what he thought folks said. Others like the
> little game of "Well, you didn't capitalize that i, so I'm going to
> assume you meant just any network of networks instead of _the
> Internet_." Isn't that just a wee bit childish?
>
> Note: Yes, it's true. "internet" is just a network of networks.
> "Internet" is _the Internet_, that thing we're all sending our e-mail
> over. :)
>
> > My original question still stands. Why? More precisely, why would
> > one care to copy the worst attributes of the oppressor, determined that
> > to protect yourself you must keep another down, unable to possibly cause
> > harm. Certainly Women must rule themselves. -Anyone- must rule
> > themselves, for Freedom, within the limits of the mind at least, is the
> > right and privilege of any sentient being.
>
> Well, for one thing, remember this...not everyone here agrees on what
> Female Supremacy is, what it should be, or what the world should be
> like when FS "is." All you can do is talk to individual people about
> their beliefs. I think it's hard to discuss something you hold near
> and dear to your heart when you've got a group of people demanding
> that you immediately explain why your personal beliefs are the
> TRUTH...I dunno, I find that a bit overwhelming. It's like going onto
> any religion's mailing list and saying, "Right now, tell me why I
> should believe in YOU people." We're not evangelists. We're here
> because we have deep, personal reasons for being here. The way to
> understand is to get to know the people first. The reasons will
> come.

Have I been -that- pushy? If I have I sincerely apologize, I
didn't -intend- to come off that way. Part of this is that my one
demonstrable talent is as a devils advocate, as as it happens in this
case the opposing position actually -does- match the position I tend
towards, so I debate a bit more fiercely than possibly I might otherwise.
If in the process I've gone beyond the realms of polite debate
and feeling out people's points of view, I apologize for that.

> > Is Matriarchy, as you see it, merely an inversion between the
> > bullied and the bullier? And if so, why would it be an improvement?
>
> No. My idea of the Matriarchy doesn't involve enslaving any gender.
> Nor saying any gender has no use/purpose/worth. How's that for a
> start?
>
> Dee-Ann
>
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 23:14:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micah L. Martin"
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, leather wrote:

> >On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Jonnan West wrote:

> >> To be fair - the -major- instigator of the 2000 years or so of
> >> Patriarchal BS was not the Romans Per Se. It was Aristotle. Along with a
> >> number of other factors of course, Aristotle however was a male
> >> chauvinist.

> >Aristotle didn't invent any of that, however. It was how he was raised; it
> >is what the Greek society of his time was thoroughly permeated with.

> It was not claimed that Aristotle "invented" it! Simply stated... read it
> again, dear... he instigated it...

What it said was that he, personally, was *the* "major instigator".
Aristotle, in other words, was The Man. This completely misses the point
that it was not the work of one man. It gives A both too much credit and
too much discredit; he was important, but not *that* important.

> he was a male chauvinist... and there "were" other factors (like the era
> being permeated with it... granted) but Socrates' (that lucious little
> drunk) teachings were different than what was embraced by the male
> ruler(s) of the time.

It is quite difficult to reconstruct what Socrates actually said. Our
sources are Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Aristotle, and these don't
agree. But the notion that Socrates was some kind of proto-feminist seems
utterly unfounded to me; he ran aground with the "male rulers" of his time
in part because some of the people he associated with had made themselves
odious by their extreme (and no doubt patriarchal) conservatism and
oppression. The myth of Diotima in Plato's Symposium is probably an
invention of Plato, and is hardly much evidence of anything anyway.

Forget this business about Socrates being a feminist Good Guy and Aristole
being the main instigator of 2300 years of male supremism. It just ain't
so.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:13:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-Id: <199609120313.WAA15943@indy1.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 981

>
> Jonnan West wrote:
> >
> > Well, I can give you a list of the -stereotypical- male and
> > female traits. However, in my experience, these stereotypes have little
> > or nothing to do with reality.
>
> I didn't ask for male and female, I asked for feminine and masculine.
> ;) Both combine to make a whole, as in the yin and the yang. To
> maybe understand a little better what I mean, check out this wonderful
> web site:
>
> http://www.ion.com.au/yoni/yonititle.html



>
> Dee-Ann
>
Just for the record, it's in my bookmarks list.
So in the Immortal words of Urd in 'Oh My Goddess' - :-P
(How's -that- for a mature, thoughtful response to a critique -
)
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 23:19:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micah L. Martin"
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Jonnan West wrote:

> > Aristotle didn't invent any of that, however. It was how he was raised; it
> > is what the Greek society of his time was thoroughly permeated with.

> Invent - No. Create the Rationalizations that spread throughout
> the two and a half millenia since - Yes. Nor was it prevalent across that
> entire Alexandrian sphere of influence until that time.

Then the guy you have a quarrel with is Alexander; he is the one who
spread Greek culture around everywhere. Aristotle simply did not have the
degree of influence in the ancient world that he came to have during
medieval times.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:46:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Good&Bad Will
Message-Id: <199609120346.WAA16773@indy1.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1817

>
> oh the killer sperm is quite real....was all over pbs and nova....
> they showed pictures of them and the difference....some are very active
> swimmers...those are the ones who make babies and many just sit waiting
> for sperm to come by and then they go right into them and kill
> them...was fascinating to watch...
> yup it is true
> Patricia
>
Hmm - I need to see this - I thought that the lifetime of a sperm
cell was very short - Do I remember wrong (Entirely possible, It's been
years) or do these cells live for a longer period providing some sort of
evolutionary contraception. I suppose it would be entirely possible for
the male sex drive to become linked (in part) to the length of time their
contraceptive sperm lived on average, ie your sperm lived for three days
providing coverage, you find yourself getting horny about every 72 hours
or so, your sperm live for 24 hours, etc . .
It actually might explain the trait of some men to get horny (I
apologize for this technical language - ) upon finding out
that they've been cheated on - kinda a (I don't -believe- I'm typing
this, but it seems logical) sperm ABM to intercept the 'enemy' genetic
sperm before an egg is inseminated. If it only worked one time out of a
hundred that might be a sufficient evolutionary advantage for it to
spread.
Interesting theory anyway. I've never quite understood that, but
I'm a monogamous type myself (He say's as if he's had as many as one
female interested any time lately - )
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: jet@nwlink.com (jet)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-Id: <199609120349.UAA05531@montana.nwlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Patricia wrote-

Thank you for the beautiful and haunting poem...it is one of my favorites
as well. Here is a class example of a woman who was squashed by
patriarchy... I can understand and this is why I subscribe to this list
and I am trying to raise my daughter with the high ideals I see here.
I do not want her to have to struggle as we do and hope that by the time
she is an adult, it will be more equal or at the very least much more
supportive of women. If not, perhaps she will be another of the catalysts.

Jet

>and this is for Dee Ann and Laura and Jet and Sorceress and Leather and
>all the wonderful and wonder-filled women on this list, and to the
>hundreds of millions of women who have been wounded, scared, altered,
>killed by Patriachy...and those millions who have survived and thrived
>even within the half-life that Patriarchy has allowed them..each is my
>sister..this is a gift of a favorite poem of mine that I identify with
>totally.
>
>HER KIND, by Anne Sexton

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: jet@nwlink.com (jet)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Good&Bad Will
Message-Id: <199609120355.UAA06282@montana.nwlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dee-Ann wrote--

>> Another interesting point. Men can actually subconsciously control
>> the amount and types of sperm they produce. If they think the woman
>> has had sex with someone else recently, they will produce more
>> blocker/killer sperm (more sperm in general, actually) than if they
>> think the woman has been monogamous.

I've read something about this, and also have seen it made fun of in
several movies about making babies ("9 Months" is one that comes to
mind). I believe the theory is: if a male eats certain foods for
a period of time before he fertilizes a woman, he will produce more of
the sperm with either an x or a y chromosome. So, for instance, if he
eats more meat, he will produce more y chromosomes or if he eats mroe
vegies or maybe chichen, he will produce more x chromosomes.

I remember reading about this somewhere, but I cannot remember where
and cannot remember exactly what it was a man should eat for producing
the x or y chromosomes. I thought it was pretty interesting. Especially
if a man didn't know and the woman who cooked for him ensured he ate
whatever it was to produce female producing sperm Interesting concept.

Jonan, I like the idea of the movie about the killer sperm...

Jet

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-Id: <199609120411.VAA03290@catherine.renaissoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1062

Coyote Sings wrote:
>
> My question is: isn't the Feminine principle central? Doesn't it
> stand for origins, the cooking fire, the oven, the hearth, the
> hearth, for gravity and attraction, the womb, the core of the circle?
> Isn't the tribe, the coven the center?
>
> Isn't the male principle peripheral? Isn't he male out there on
> the edge, wandering around, wandering off to another fire, looking
> for more mischief, new thrills, discovering, violating?

The above is what I was talking about, regarding the difference
between the feminine and masculine. The feminine is necessary to
guide the masculine and keep it from getting out of hand (as it
currently is). Trivialize the feminine, and you have a world of
cutthroat competition and raping of the earth.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:20:32 -0400
From: Laura Goodwin
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com, femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960912042032.006a29e4@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>A woman like that is not ashamed to die.
>I have been her kind.
>
>PATRICIA

One of my fav poets is Sylvia Plath:

(from *Lady Lazarus*)

"...Herr God, Herr Lucifer,
Beware, Beware.
Out of the ash I rise with my red hair
And I eat men like air."

Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #13
***********************************************

From - Thu Sep 12 16:31:02 1996


At 07:23 PM 9/11/96 -0700, you wrote:
>show a little respect for those here who do not believe in your god or
>gods....you keep on speaking in absolutes....like you know the truth and
>those who believe differently are stupid..or off base....just cause it
>was written in some damn old book...hell Mein Kampf is a book too.
>in matriarchy their will be room for people to believe what they believe
>and no room for shoving what you believe down someone elses throat...or
>anything else for that matter.
>snip...

>Patricia

Thanks, Patricia...I was beginning to feel like I was being
forced into a revival meeting. I neither worship nor give
credence to a male god, nor will I ever bow my knee to one,
or to any male for that matter. As for matriarchy, I personally
do not care for that term, as it is just the reverse side
of patriarchy and has the makings of a dictatorship.

I believe women to be superior and far wiser than those males
who need to use force to rule. I do not need or want
equality nor do I intend to beg for absolution
from some illusory notion of sin. I do not embrace sin, the devil
or any other manifestation of someone's distorted explanation of
life and the universe. My universe is what I define for Myself
and its beginnings are at the center of My being.

Too long have we, as women, been taught to see our lives,
our beginnings and our destinies, defined by patriarchal
thought. We then endured subjugation by males who have used
necromancy (death of christ,cult of martyrs etc.)
to trick us into believing in some feigned notion
of inborn wickedness. I suspect christianity is nothing
more than the concoction of some AD&D dungeonmaster whose
campaign got out of hand. It would be ludicrous except for the
fact it has caused the death of so many, many women and the
men who followed them.

It is now time for The Great Whore to appear, magnificent
in her wickedness, the apotheosis of iniquity and incarnation
of depravity.

Men fear Her, they quiver at Her feet
and then.....OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!


Imagery
The Queen of Hearts

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Tue Sep 17 18:13:33 1996

------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
Re: Room on that Broomstick ?
Female/male brain differences
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Delay In Messages
Passing comment
Re: Advice
Re: Advise please
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Passing comment
i wish to thank all of you.... :)
RE: Passing comment
RE: Passing comment
Mistress Lorraine... thank you Ma'am
RE: Passing comment
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Female/male brain differences


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:24:06 -0400
From: Laura Goodwin
To: kalika@netbox.com, femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Room on that Broomstick ?
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960914172406.0069bcd4@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 06:03 PM 9/13/96 -0600, Kalika wrote:

>males (when they can't use big muscles) use this type of intellectual nit
>picking / logical / linear mode of attack ... taking out of context ...
>semantic nit picking ... assuming everything is to be taken literally (as a
>result of their often inability to use any aspect except the left
>hemisphere) ... to still be basically civil and academically "correct" so no
>one can say they aren't "polite"... To me, it is the same old 10,000 year
>old BS, just less physical.

Right on, well said, hear hear! So true.

>
>I vote to have Dee-Ann exercise greater power. The List was having a
>wonderful and IMO, highly informative and educational exchange regarding FS
>in the workplace. I felt we all could learn from it .. all could enjoy it
>and all could use things therefrom to enhance our personal workplace
>environment (or fantasy thereof). I enjoyed posts from males like Malcolm,
>Zbobz, Coyote, Maid Paula ...so I am not against full participation by
>males. I miss postings by Marissa, etc. on this and other topics and I see
>these being forced out to make room in the bandwidth for this other stuff.

Thank you, that was very well put indeed.

Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: feydancer@earthlink.net (Phoenix)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id: <199609141936.MAA07913@spain.it.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Kalika wrote (in part):

>males (when they can't use big muscles) use this type of intellectual nit
>picking / logical / linear mode of attack ... taking out of context ...
>semantic nit picking ... assuming everything is to be taken literally (as=
a
>result of their often inability to use any aspect except the left
>hemisphere) ... to still be basically civil and academically "correct" so=
no
>one can say they aren't "polite"... To me, it is the same old 10,000 year
>old BS, just less physical.


Well, they may not be able to help it! One of the physical differences
between women and men is in the structure of our brains. The two hemispheres
are linked by a bridge of nerve tissue known as the corpus callosum. This
"bridge" is what allows communication between the two hemispheres. Women
have a much larger corpus callosum. A friend of mine jokes that this gives
women a super-highway of consciousness and leaves men struggling with a dirt
path. I think a tendency for non-integrated thinking in men probably does
have a biological aspect. In some ways men's ability to focus on one aspect
of something is good--it makes for some excellent technology. But the lack
of "big-picture" thinking has gotten us (and continues to get us) into the
mess we're in!

I always remember the Iroquois governmental system, in which men were
"chiefs," but were chosen by a council of older women. Should a chief begin
acting irresponsibly or in a way that endangered the community, the women
booted him out and picked a new one. The men who created our (U.S.) system
of government took a lot of their inspiration from the Native Americans BUT
they left out the council of women. (Doomed from the start!) So we went
charging into the technological age without a safety valve.

A related factoid--researchers measuring brain activity during speaking
found that men use a small localized area of the brain when they speak,
women use areas all over the brain. The researchers concluded that
communication must be a much more intense experience for women. (And when I
took biology in college I was told that speech in humans was localized in
one small area of the brain. Yet another instance where "man" does not
represent the majority!)

--Lady Phoenix




=A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4=
~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4

"It is individuals who change societies, give birth to ideas; who, standing
out against tides of opinion, change them." --Doris Lessing=20

=20



___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 16:22:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: aehthex@magi.com (Lorraine Jobin)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id: <199609142022.QAA16664@infoweb.magi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I just knew there had to be some reason why I talk so much!!

Lorraine
>
>A related factoid--researchers measuring brain activity during speaking
>found that men use a small localized area of the brain when they speak,
>women use areas all over the brain. The researchers concluded that
>communication must be a much more intense experience for women. (And when I
>took biology in college I was told that speech in humans was localized in
>one small area of the brain. Yet another instance where "man" does not
>represent the majority!)
>
>--Lady Phoenix
>
>
>
>
>=A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4=
~~~~~~~~ =A4 ~~~~~~~~ =A4
>
>"It is individuals who change societies, give birth to ideas; who, standing
>out against tides of opinion, change them." --Doris Lessing=20
>
>=20
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 13:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Blake and/or Marla
To: peter
cc: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Delay In Messages
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Well peter:

> I have never been or heard of a fellow Canadian being insulted by the term
> "Canuck."
I thoroughly dilike being called a Canuk,so now you have heard of a
Canadian who dislikes it.
>
> By the way, I once read that the best way to get a Canadian angry is to ask
> them to explain the Quebec separation issue (which unites the entire
> country into a massive state of boredom). Or, even better, tell us we're
> just like Americans ... lol.
> >
As to seperation I don't care to discuss it. It evokes littlt to no
feelings for me.

AN insteresting definition I heard of a Canadian is an American without a
gun and with socialised medicine.

Milady Marla
> >This is a bit off-topic, but my curiosity is piqued. Both of you have
> >used the term "Canucks". When I lived briefly in Ontario about
> >twenty-five years ago, that was a very insulting term. Have things
> >changed so much that is is now acceptable?
I don't think so.
> >
> >Barry
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
> For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
> mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:25:44 -0500
From: kriv@interlog.com (Peter)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Passing comment
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Recent comments, actions and reactions by some people has caused me a great
deal of concern. Specifically, they're comments regarding men, their roles,
and some women's ideas of men.

I've been led to believe that some women have absolutely no use for men
other than as a tool to serve some purpose. They see absolutely no merit or
value to men and their mental make-up. Men have no redeeming qualities, as
far as they're concerned.

To be honest, I find this very difficult to believe.

I posted a similar message a few months ago and received replies from some
women saying that every man in their life has hurt them physically or
emotionally. I'm very sorry for this. This upsets me greatly.

But I also received private emails from a few women who agreed with my
message. Basically they said that even though they believed in female
supremacy, they also believed that there is some good in men.

Regardless, I feel hurt by the comments and actions by some women. And I'm
sure the vast majority of men on this list also feel a similar hurt.

Are some women so contemptuous of men that they are unable to formulate any
positive emotions about them? Are they unable to see men as human beings,
with emotions and feelings? Don't they realize that there some men around
who are nice guys? Is there a woman out there who has honestly never met
one pleasant man in her life?

I really don't know why some women act or feel this way. I don't know why
some act the way they do to the men on this list. Don't they realize that
we're on this list because we're on the way to the world of femsupremacy?
Isn't there some merit to that?


So, why am I still on this list? I believe in empowering women, so I guess
I have to take the bad with the good. Also, this is an exellent study of
personalities, which I know all will agree.

What I don't want to do with this message is attempt to get the women here
to stroke my ego with praising messages. I also hope the doesn't elicit
sarcastic replies and jokes ... and flames.

Actually, I was going to end this with a couple of questions:

I was going to ask: Are women supreme because they're women? Or, are women
supreme because men are such jerks?

But then, that's a major reason why this list is in existence.

So, I'll just leave this as a passing comment. I'm just unloading my
feelings (feminine trait).
Peter



___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:39:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advice
Message-Id: <199609150039.TAA19893@indy2.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 834

(Warning - long, verbose, and somewhat off-topic post coming)
Thanks to everyone that responded to my request for clarification
on whether my responses were germane to the content of this list - I
appreciated it deeply, and wanted to say so. I didn't respond to people
at the time because I had said I was going to refrain from posting until
I had sufficient information to make a decision in good faith. So those
who responded that I was unable to reply to via E-mail, whatever your
feelings might have been on the subject, Thanks.

Jonnan


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 06:55:46 +0100
From: Grant Nightingale
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Advise please
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960915055546.00664040@popmail.i-way.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 13:24 14/09/96 -0400, Laura Goodwin wrote:
>At 06:58 AM 9/14/96 +0100, Grant Nightingale wrote:
>
>>There *was* some discussion around this topic, in January:
>
>Oh, sure, but I meant *lately*! ;) You expect me to remember back that far?
>

No of course not :) your Domness, which is why I reposted the most relevant
parts of that discussion.

Grant

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 11:05:59 +0500 (GMT+0500)
From: williams@bayboro.stpt.usf.edu
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> >A related factoid--researchers measuring brain activity during speaking
> >found that men use a small localized area of the brain when they speak,
> >women use areas all over the brain. The researchers concluded that
> >communication must be a much more intense experience for women.

But wait! no doubt these were male researchers. Please point me to the
research article so that I can determine how many female researchers were
on the team and how their data was collected.


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 09:14:49 +0100
From: robert and fiona forsythe
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Passing comment
Message-ID:

In message , Peter
writes a lot that touches us here and we are glad
you piped up but to try to be pithy:
>
>I was going to ask: Are women supreme because they're women?
could well be because nature evolved them to care and nurture, to invest
affection in other persons (their offsrping) and did whatever else to
their brain's hemispheres some folks have told us about.

>Or, are women
>supreme because men are such jerks?

many are just so and that comes from the hearts of both of us but as you
say many, many are not. If they are jerks it is because their nature is
that of the raw killer and it may also be because unless civilisation
tones that down (as religion once tried to), or parental upbringing, or
as fs MAY be able to, then they go off the head and many are doing just
that. It is even worse when school education so far from teaching them
sexual discipline teaches them to grab whatever strikes them as nice
(drugs,drink, girls). The schools will say they do not do this, but
there is an argument that this is just what humanist (as opposed to
behaviourist) education philisophy has done. Should fs advocate
behaviourism in schools for boys and separate sex schools? Maybe (and
maybe not.....).
But folks, if many in fs feel truly that their men are better for the
discipline then what about the kids in school?

Two thoughts and one is very British,
the media diet including American (and its imitatory UK version) TV
panders and encourages the violence in man,
and lack of economic opportunity and lack of hope creates the badwill we
abhor,
this is our quote which we have not heard before, what do you all make
of it?
"If society does not owe you a job, what do you owe society?"

--
fiona and robert forsythe

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:29:24 -0500
From: falcon@sbc.mwol.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: i wish to thank all of you.... :)
Message-ID:

hello to all the Goddesses here and the submissive males here who know
their proper place...

i wish to thank you all for accepting me for who i am... this is the
best group of people i have ever known... i love all of you...

i went into a FemDom channel and the bot introduced me saying i dream of
being a total toilet slave some day... one Female user flamed me for
it... only one... the others defended me...

i do thank the Goddess that i have not been flamed here as of yet... i
do worship and adore Women... and the only reason, i dream of being a
total toilet slave is i wish to give my all in my service... and
everything about the Domme who owns me is sacred... even her body
waste...

again thank you all
toilet slave billy
aka falcon
falcon@sbc.mwol.com


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 96 20:22:53 UT
From: "Thomas Young"
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: RE: Passing comment
Message-Id:

> The schools will say they do not do this, but there is an argument that this
is just what humanist (as opposed to behaviourist) education philisophy has
done.

i would like to hear more on the difference between humanist and behaviorist
because i don't know the distinction.

> media diet including American (and its imitatory UK version) TV panders and
encourages the violence in man

Our American society glorifies violence and predatory financial practices. For
instance, rewarding an executive with great wealth for laying off thousands of
employees. Both Bruce Willis and Ivan Boesky are generally well regarded, yet
both encourage one form of violence or another without making our society any
better. Women are not immune from that behavior, but for either biological or
sociological reasons, they do not seem to be quite as quick to trash a society
for a couple of million dollars, or pounds.

>"If society does not owe you a job, what do you owe society?"

Hmmm, i like the quote very much. Intend to ponder it more.

tom

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 14:04:00 -0700
From: jnbry@ix.netcom.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: RE: Passing comment
Message-Id: <19969151625116334@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

These type of posts are hard for me as they raise the issue of the politics
of FS. I have a hard enough time learning how FS/FD affects my own life,
let alone how FS should affect complex laws relating to something so
generally labelled as "predatory financial practices".

I will say this much: Financial practices which to some appear "predatory",
may look far more benign to a minority shareholder whose stock has been
devalued by incompetant but entrenched corporate management. The same laws
which permit a corporate raider to make seemingly "obscene" profits, are
designed to protect and empower shareholders who own less than the
controlling interest in a company.

Since I'm in for this much, I'll go one more: The question is asked that if
society does not "owe" a person a job, what does that person owe society?

If we are talking about American society, I hope the answer is always "her
or his personal best".

I hope the FS political philosophy (if there ever is such a thing) will be
in the mold of JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you
can do for your country".

I hope that FS believers will be thankful for the *opportunities* of this
country, especially if and when more of these opportunities are afforded to
women.

I hope there will be gratitude even if there are no guarantees.


Jim

On 09/15/96 20:22:53 you wrote:
>
>> The schools will say they do not do this, but there is an argument that
this
>is just what humanist (as opposed to behaviourist) education philisophy has
>done.
>
>i would like to hear more on the difference between humanist and
behaviorist
>because i don't know the distinction.
>
>> media diet including American (and its imitatory UK version) TV panders
and
>encourages the violence in man
>
>Our American society glorifies violence and predatory financial practices.
For
>instance, rewarding an executive with great wealth for laying off thousands
of
>employees. Both Bruce Willis and Ivan Boesky are generally well regarded,
yet
>both encourage one form of violence or another without making our society
any
>better. Women are not immune from that behavior, but for either biological
or
>sociological reasons, they do not seem to be quite as quick to trash a
society
>for a couple of million dollars, or pounds.
>
>>"If society does not owe you a job, what do you owe society?"
>
>Hmmm, i like the quote very much. Intend to ponder it more.
>
>tom
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".
>
>
>



___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:18:28 -0500
From: falcon@sbc.mwol.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Mistress Lorraine... thank you Ma'am
Message-ID:

Hello Mistress Lorraine
thank you, Ma'am for i'm honored by your very nice reply...
i sometimes find the FemDom channel on irc.dal.net or on the undernet
and i think irc.neosoft.com
i wish to invite you to visit sleeping beauty's castle a BDSM board here
in kcmo... the telnet address is sbc.mwol.com or 206.150.130.70
even though my desire to serve as a toilet slave is very strong... i'mm
not like i used to be... i was too eagerr to go and serve and not
knowing the Domme with disasterous results... got hurt many times and
nearly killed once... i know my dream will come true some day... since
i'm at it... i'll share an experience... i had wrote a text file that i
uploaded about a Dominant Woman using a toilet slave... this couple in
Iowa got that file some how... what i did not know... they had a history
of domestic violence... he was an ex-con for arson... they were due in
court for he dragged her in a ditch my her hair... that he was
psychotic... i did not bother to get to know them... first before i made
my move up there about two years ago... she was supposed to be dominant
but was not but an instrument that her boyfriend used to Dom me with...
i was told that i was her slave and will be her toilet slave... it would
have happened and i got to sample some of her brown shower... but it was
a most dangerous situation... i was a shell of a person and since then
have come a long way... i was scared... now i know better... i was
wanting to watch a football game on my own TV that i brought up... he
wanted to watch auto racing and would not let me... she got mad and
attacked him... she tried to leave out the door... he grabbed her by the
hair and threw her across the room... she landed against the back of the
couch... i was about to get dressed... he shouted STOP THAT RIGHT
NOW... i'm not a fighter, i have not fought in years... but there are
times you have to stand up and do what is right... but i was weak
then... i snuck off that night and got the heck out of there... that is
just one story... i do thank you again for your understanding and
kindness
toilet slave billy
aka falcon
sbc.mwol.com
206.150.130.70


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 04:28:17 +0100
From: Grant Nightingale
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: RE: Passing comment
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960916032817.00672108@popmail.i-way.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 20:22 15/09/96 UT, you wrote:

>>"If society does not owe you a job, what do you owe society?"
>
>Hmmm, i like the quote very much. Intend to ponder it more.
>
>tom
>
How about

"If society does not owe you a job, to what do you owe society?"

grant

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:05:38 -0400
From: Laura Goodwin
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960916060538.0069a908@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:36 PM 9/14/96 -0700, Phoenix wrote:

>A related factoid--researchers measuring brain activity during speaking
>found that men use a small localized area of the brain when they speak,
>women use areas all over the brain.

Wow, great post, thank you.

Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 01:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: feydancer@earthlink.net (Phoenix)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id: <199609160815.BAA27804@iberia.it.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>> >A related factoid--researchers measuring brain activity during speaking
>> >found that men use a small localized area of the brain when they speak,
>> >women use areas all over the brain. The researchers concluded that
>> >communication must be a much more intense experience for women.
>
>But wait! no doubt these were male researchers. Please point me to the
>research article so that I can determine how many female researchers were
>on the team and how their data was collected.


This was something I saw on television some time back. I didn't really take
notes on it! However, I did find the following:

(http://www.haskins.yale.edu/Haskins/STAFF/pughAb1.html)

Sex Differences in the Functional Organization of the Brain for Language
(1995 Nature, 373, 607-609)

Bennett A. Shaywitz (1,2), Sally E. Shaywitz (1), Kenneth R. Pugh (1,3), R.
Todd Constable (4), Pawel Skudlarski (4), Richard T. Bronen (4), Robert K.
Fulbright (4), Jack M. Fletcher (5), Donald P. Shankweiler (3), Leonard Katz
(3), and John C. Gore (4,6)

(1) Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine
(2) Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine
(3) Haskins Laboratories
(4) Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine
(5) Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas-Houston
(6) Department of Applied Physics, Yale University


Abstract

The question of whether there exist sex differences in the functional
organization of the brain for language represents an area of considerable
debate. A long held, but unconfirmed hypothesis posits that in general,
language functions are more likely to be highly lateralized in males but
represented in both cerebral hemispheres in females. Here we use echo-planar
functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study 38 right-handed subjects (19
males and 19 females) during orthographic (letter recognition), phonological
(rhyme) and semantic (semantic category) tasks. We find significant sex
differences in activation patterns during phonological tasks: in males,
brain activation is localized to left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) regions;
in females the pattern of activation is very different, engaging more
diffuse neural systems involving both left and right IFG regions. These data
provide the first clear evidence of sex differences in the functional
organization of the brain for language and indicate that these differences
exist at the level of phonological processing.



___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #20
***********************************************

From - Tue Sep 17 18:13:43 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
communion
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: communion
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Re: Undeliverable Mail
just wondering
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: God/Goddess Worship

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:28:32 -0500
From: falcon@sbc.mwol.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: communion
Message-ID:

it just dawned on me one of the most important reasons that i enjoy
being a toilet slave for my Goddess incarnate... it is communion... it
is a gift from her... partaking of the golden nectar and the golden
manna from my Goddess incarnate as a form of communion... just recently
was i blessed on a couple of times to experience communion with my
Goddess incarnate in the form of drinking her golden nectar and i pray
to the Goddesses that some day that i will get to experience the utmost
in communion with my Goddess incarnate when i get the blessing of her
golden manna. ..
falcon@sbc.mwol.com
aka toilet slave billy


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:24:15 -0700
From: jet
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-ID: <323D7F2F.14AF@nwlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Phoenix--

> This was something I saw on television some time back. I didn't really take
> notes on it! However, I did find the following:
>
> (http://www.haskins.yale.edu/Haskins/STAFF/pughAb1.html)

Is the above the site where you found this abstract? Did you do a
search
on Yahoo? If not, which search engine did you use? This interests me
very much and would like to find out more about the differences in the
brains of females/males. Thanks...

Jet

> Sex Differences in the Functional Organization of the Brain for Language
> (1995 Nature, 373, 607-609)

Jet

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 09:58 WET DST
From: robertr@WK.COM (ROBERT RASMUSSEN)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: communion
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

unsubscibe




>it just dawned on me one of the most important reasons that i enjoy
>being a toilet slave for my Goddess incarnate... it is communion... it
>is a gift from her... partaking of the golden nectar and the golden
>manna from my Goddess incarnate as a form of communion... just recently
>was i blessed on a couple of times to experience communion with my
>Goddess incarnate in the form of drinking her golden nectar and i pray
>to the Goddesses that some day that i will get to experience the utmost
>in communion with my Goddess incarnate when i get the blessing of her
>golden manna. ..
>falcon@sbc.mwol.com
>aka toilet slave billy
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:20:07 -0800
From: leather@zephyr.net (leather)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Peter wrote...

>Leather, would you please give some general idea of how you teach your sons
>the concepts of FS?

I don't know if I should post this to the whole list... but... it clearly
has to do with FS. So here goes...

My sons both have strengths and weaknesses, like everyone else. I try to
help them work on these strengths and weaknesses thereby giving them a
sense of right and wrong/healthy and unhealthy thought processes and
behaviours. Of course, they will turn out to be who they are going to be,
but as their parents, we have the responsibility to help them mold these
traits to their greatest advantage... which in the FS aspect, is to treat
Women with great respect (even to the point of adoration/worship) and
giving ALL Women admiration/adoration for the strengths We display.

I fully expect they will continue to encounter Women with "bad" will, as
well as men who do not respect Our gender but they have the foundation with
which to operate and avoid being "sucked" into negativity or self
exhaultation. I also fully expect that they will be more satisfied with
life and more sucessful, given the training, background, and example in
which my husband and I have offered them.

Keep in mind, however, that we are not professionals... we have no
degrees... we are simply parents who want our children grow up to be happy,
healthy, and safe. We actually didn't deliberately start impressing any FS
ideals on them until they were 5 and 3 years old as we were both slaves to
addiction prior to that (they are now 17 and 15, respectively).

I know this is relatively vague, but it doesn't make any sense to me to go
into more detail than this. If you have specific situations that you
question... email Me privately and I will try to expound on specifics.

Other than that...
remember...
Womben are Supreme!

Leather

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />
leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
\ /
http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
\/Y\/
http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
_____/__\______
toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: zbobz
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id: <199609161803.LAA19317@denmark.it.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:15 AM 9/16/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
>This was something I saw on television some time back. I didn't really take
>notes on it! However, I did find the following:
>
>(http://www.haskins.yale.edu/Haskins/STAFF/pughAb1.html)
>
>Sex Differences in the Functional Organization of the Brain for Language
>(1995 Nature, 373, 607-609)
>
>Bennett A. Shaywitz (1,2), Sally E. Shaywitz (1), Kenneth R. Pugh (1,3), R.
>Todd Constable (4), Pawel Skudlarski (4), Richard T. Bronen (4), Robert K.
>Fulbright (4), Jack M. Fletcher (5), Donald P. Shankweiler (3), Leonard Katz
>(3), and John C. Gore (4,6)
>
>(1) Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine
>(2) Department of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine
>(3) Haskins Laboratories
>(4) Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine
>(5) Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas-Houston
>(6) Department of Applied Physics, Yale University
>
>
>Abstract
>
>The question of whether there exist sex differences in the functional
>organization of the brain for language represents an area of considerable
>debate. A long held, but unconfirmed hypothesis posits that in general,
>language functions are more likely to be highly lateralized in males but
>represented in both cerebral hemispheres in females. Here we use echo-planar
>functional
>magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study 38 right-handed subjects (19
>males and 19 females) during orthographic (letter recognition), phonological
>(rhyme) and semantic (semantic category) tasks. We find significant sex
>differences in activation patterns during phonological tasks: in males,
>brain activation is localized to left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) regions;
>in females the pattern of activation is very different, engaging more
>diffuse neural systems involving both left and right IFG regions. These data
>provide the first clear evidence of sex differences in the functional
>organization of the brain for language and indicate that these differences
>exist at the level of phonological processing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very nicely done. *Nature* for any who may not know is a highly reputable
science journal. Along those same lines maybe it's worth noting that there
has been concensus among psychologists on the fact of sex differences in
language for a very long time (most of this century if my memory serves me:
no, I wasn't there). Women and Girls excell in language tasks. The source
and meaning of the difference is the only thing that's really been in
question. Also if my memory serves me when the earliest intelligence tests
were developed they were highly language oriented (since they were developed
essentially for use as school aptitude tests, and language was viewed as the
primary criterion of school success). Revisions were required to weight
them more to non language tasks in order to raise the scores of males and
make the average scores of Girls and boys come out the same (which was
important for obvious reasons).

Yes, it's true. The fact that Women and men have on the average the same
level of measured intelligence is an artifact of decisions on item selection
and weighting made in the process of developing the test. Completely
arbitrary, completely artifical.

On a personal note, I'm a male with pretty descent language abilities, but
it has been intuitively obvious to me for some time that Women deal with
language in a different, and in many respects more effective way than I,
even when their measured language abilities are less. It has always seemed
to me that for Women language is a much more integrated aspect of their
whole being. For me thought occurs and is then converted to language
(sometimes effortfully), whereas it has always appeared to me that for Women
thought occurs (or can occur) more immediately as language (and with
remarkable ease). These are of course things that vary greatly within
either sex too.

zbobz


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:16:50 -0700
From: jet
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Message-ID: <323D9992.4024@nwlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dee-Ann--

Leave it to you to point out the obvious... ;D

> A nice start would be mates who are willing and _do_ chip in at least
> half of the necessary work at home. ;) Too many women are expected
> to keep the house clean, get dinner ready, chauffer the kids, raise
> the kids, etc. while too many men think this work is beneath them.

It's funny! I do these things as an everyday occurrence, but have
no one to share these jobs with. My ex doesn't even pay the child
support he's supposed to ($26,000 + behind even with the gov't taking
half his legal money), so I am looking for a sub/mate to help with
these. Someday i will find that person. In the meantime, I do what
I can... :/

> It's the attitude of "beneath" that has to change.

I've heard this from many men...that they don't want to do "women's
work." And they have this sneer to their voice when they say
women's work. What do they do when they are single? Have their
girlfriends do it or Mom? Probably, they do. It is too bad that
the women in their lives support them in this. Giving them "free"
labor.

Not only does it
> keep them from doing their fair share of the work...it also allows
> them to see women as "beneath" them because the women _do_ do that
> work.

Exactly. We do that work because we don't want to live in squalor.
Have you ever smelled most men's apartments after they have lived
there for a year or more? It has that "batchelor pad" smell...not
clean, kind of old and oily and dirty smelling. (I did not say all,
mind you, I said most). The only time they move is when they can't
stand their own filth...and because the women in their lives won't
clean up for them. Smart women... :)

Jet

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:27:40 -0700
From: jnbry@ix.netcom.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Message-Id: <1996916132632211478@ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I thought I sent a similiar post earlier to the whole group but I guess I
just sent it to one person. Anyway, I'll try it again sinced the topic came
up again. :)

On 09/16/96 11:16:50 you wrote:
>
>Dee-Ann--
>
(snip)
>Exactly. We do that work because we don't want to live in squalor.
>Have you ever smelled most men's apartments after they have lived
>there for a year or more? It has that "batchelor pad" smell...not
>clean, kind of old and oily and dirty smelling. (I did not say all,
>mind you, I said most). The only time they move is when they can't
>stand their own filth...and because the women in their lives won't
>clean up for them. Smart women... :)
>
>Jet
>

Re "Men Behaving Badly", I can indentify!

My senior year in college, my roommate and I lived in a small trailer in the
country. We would go for weeks refusing to do our respective chores. As
you said, the pretext for these cleaning "strikes" was usually that the
other person had not done their fair share of the work.

During one particularly lengthy strike, the trash and dishes mounted up in
the kitchen. Out of pity, my fiance let me stay with her for a few days but
insisted that I get the trailer cleaned so I could move back in to my own
place.

I came back to the trailer a few nights later not having yet cleaned it.
When I opened the front door and came inside I found a skunk about two yards
away from me, standing in the middle of the trailer's small living room.
Apparently, it found a hole in the trailer floor and had been dining on our
refuse.

The skunk looked at me and I looked at him. A few very long seconds passed
as he decided whether to nail me. Something passed between us and I knew he
would let me go unscathed if I left immediately via the way I came in. I
guess he had come to think of my roommate and I as kindred spirits and
wished us no harm.

I backed out of the door, and returned to my fiance's house with my story
about a narrow escape from a wild skunk, all leading up to why I really
needed to spend another night at her place. Fortunately, she had seen our
trailer and found the story all too believable.

Incidentally, I forgot to wake my roomate to tell him about the danger. He
didn't get sprayed but this became yet another point of contention.

The next day, at my fiance's insistance, I cleaned the kitchen, plugged the
hole and moved back in. As I think back, this is the first household chore
she ordered me to perform.

In the meantime, my roomate and I lived on snack foods, peanut butter and
stew meat. My roomate's parents butchered their own cattle and gave us an
unlimited supply of stew meat (about which the thought never occured to make
stew).

If we felt especially energetic, we ate the meat in flour tortillas. We
cooked these in a red Coors beer tray my roomate had removed from a local
bar. There was always this light orange residue on any tortilla cooked in
this tray.

Those were the days!

PS: Yes, knowing all of this, my fiance still married me. We remain
married 15 years and three kids later.






___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:30:18 -0800
From: leather@zephyr.net (leather)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Undeliverable Mail
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Jet, Thank you for responding and validating my post on raising children. I
tried to respond back to both of your addresses but they both came back as
undeliverable... so I will use the list... just this once. :)

>Subject: Connected in more than one way
>
>I noticed your return address has zephyr.net in it. Are we members of
>another similar family?
>
>It is also my understanding that you are in Seattle? I am in Portland...
>perhaps we will meet at some point and find yet more in common!?!
>
>I lavish in the strength, experience, and hope of the Women on this list
>and feel completely validated for who I am!
>
>BTW, I had a totally cool experience this last weekend. I went to Lincoln
>City (on the coast) and was renewed through the use of healing crystals and
>stones. I received a vision of My path by a spirit guide and it is very
>good. Did you know that women can be mistaken in pursuing their feminine
>power by using their masculine traits??? I just learned this... more will
>be revealed. :)
>
>Leather
>
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
>leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
> \ /
>http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
> \/Y\/
>http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
> _____/__\______
>toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689
>
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />
leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
\ /
http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
\/Y\/
http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
_____/__\______
toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:06:14 -0500
From: falcon@sbc.mwol.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: just wondering
Message-ID:

i just got a recent reply stating that i'm over doing it... if so, my
apologies... i do plan to post on other areas as well... laying off a
bit and thanx :-)
tsb
falcon


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:24:46 -0500 (EST)
From: jewest@cord.iupui.edu
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id: <199609162124.QAA10692@cord.iupui.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Very nicely done. *Nature* for any who may not know is a highly reputable
> science journal. Along those same lines maybe it's worth noting that there
> has been concensus among psychologists on the fact of sex differences in
> language for a very long time (most of this century if my memory serves me:
> no, I wasn't there). Women and Girls excell in language tasks. The source
> and meaning of the difference is the only thing that's really been in
> question. Also if my memory serves me when the earliest intelligence tests
> were developed they were highly language oriented (since they were developed
> essentially for use as school aptitude tests, and language was viewed as the
> primary criterion of school success). Revisions were required to weight
> them more to non language tasks in order to raise the scores of males and
> make the average scores of Girls and boys come out the same (which was
> important for obvious reasons).
>
> Yes, it's true. The fact that Women and men have on the average the same
> level of measured intelligence is an artifact of decisions on item selection
> and weighting made in the process of developing the test. Completely
> arbitrary, completely artifical.
>
> On a personal note, I'm a male with pretty descent language abilities, but
> it has been intuitively obvious to me for some time that Women deal with
> language in a different, and in many respects more effective way than I,
> even when their measured language abilities are less. It has always seemed
> to me that for Women language is a much more integrated aspect of their
> whole being. For me thought occurs and is then converted to language
> (sometimes effortfully), whereas it has always appeared to me that for Women
> thought occurs (or can occur) more immediately as language (and with
> remarkable ease). These are of course things that vary greatly within
> either sex too.
>
> zbobz
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
Hmmm - interesting. If so, why isn't there a larger margin of
difference in SAT's between men and women. Not -totals-, but I would
expect that men would consistently score much higher in math and women
score much higher in english. The first time I took them, I scored
exactly the same in each . . .
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:43:51 -0700
From: jet
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-ID: <323DD827.1F49@nwlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

zbobz wrote:


> > whole being. For me thought occurs and is then converted to language
> > (sometimes effortfully), whereas it has always appeared to me that for Women
> > thought occurs (or can occur) more immediately as language (and with
> > remarkable ease). These are of course things that vary greatly within
> > either sex too.

As I was reading this, I got another image. If you go to another
country,
let's say Spain or Mexico, and all the language you have is high school
Spanish, you try to speak to them in high school Spanish. You think the
thought in English, then convert it to Spanish. You do this for let's
say
about 2 weeks. At around the 10-day mark, all of a sudden you begin to
think in Spanish...you no longer have to convert the English into
Spanish
because you no longer need to do that.

This happened to me when I was in Mexico in March. I was there for
about
a week, and around the 5th day, I was thinking and beginning to reply in
Spanish without the conversion. I had 3-4 years of Spanish in High
school.
Most people only take 1-2 years. I seem to be able to make the change
much
quicker, at least in Spanish. In French or Portugese, it might take me
much
longer, only because all I have is a fleeting bit of c'est le vive or
what-
ever we have added within our own language.

I think this is what zbobz was getting at here.

Jonnan wrote:

> Hmmm - interesting. If so, why isn't there a larger margin of
> difference in SAT's between men and women. Not -totals-, but I would
> expect that men would consistently score much higher in math and women
> score much higher in english. The first time I took them, I scored
> exactly the same in each . . .

I think it depends on individuals areas of interest and their natural
ability to do well. The same as some individuals cannot take a test to
save their lives, while for others, they do best at tests, and cannot
do homework or the incidentals to save their lives. I would also
hazard a guess that for most people wanting to enter college/university
have already gotten a pretty well-rounded education. They would not
be taking the SAT or any exam to get into higher education if they
didn't already have the idea that they would do well. Do you think the
same would be true of people going into the trades?

Jet

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:49:18 -0500
From: kriv@interlog.com (Peter)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Leather:

To be honest, anything more you might tell me about your sons' upbringing
might add fuel to my fantasies, and that wasn't the reason why I asked the
question.

In any event, I believe that what you teach your sons is something that
should be taught every young male, no what type of relationship their
parents are in.
Peter>
>

>Peter wrote...
>
>>Leather, would you please give some general idea of how you teach your sons
>>the concepts of FS?
>
>I don't know if I should post this to the whole list... but... it clearly
>has to do with FS. So here goes...
>
>My sons both have strengths and weaknesses, like everyone else. I try to
>help them work on these strengths and weaknesses thereby giving them a
>sense of right and wrong/healthy and unhealthy thought processes and
>behaviours. Of course, they will turn out to be who they are going to be,
>but as their parents, we have the responsibility to help them mold these
>traits to their greatest advantage... which in the FS aspect, is to treat
>Women with great respect (even to the point of adoration/worship) and
>giving ALL Women admiration/adoration for the strengths We display.
>
>I fully expect they will continue to encounter Women with "bad" will, as
>well as men who do not respect Our gender but they have the foundation with
>which to operate and avoid being "sucked" into negativity or self
>exhaultation. I also fully expect that they will be more satisfied with
>life and more sucessful, given the training, background, and example in
>which my husband and I have offered them.
>
>Keep in mind, however, that we are not professionals... we have no
>degrees... we are simply parents who want our children grow up to be happy,
>healthy, and safe. We actually didn't deliberately start impressing any FS
>ideals on them until they were 5 and 3 years old as we were both slaves to
>addiction prior to that (they are now 17 and 15, respectively).
>
>I know this is relatively vague, but it doesn't make any sense to me to go
>into more detail than this. If you have specific situations that you
>question... email Me privately and I will try to expound on specifics.
>
>Other than that...
> remember...
> Womben are Supreme!
>
>Leather
>
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
>leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
> \ /
>http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
> \/Y\/
>http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
> _____/__\______
>toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689
>
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".


___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #21
***********************************************

From - Thu Sep 12 16:31:05 1996


>
> Jonnan West wrote:
> >
> > This presupposes that fear of losing power is some intellectually
> > or emotionally logical position. A Bully is a Bully because he or she (I
> > know from personal experience that they come in both varieties) is so
> > fearful of being hurt that they cannot -stand- the thought of someone
> > being strong enough to hurt them, (And in my experience BTW, there is
> > usually -some- logical motivation for this - Most often a abusive
> > relationship) and they therefore make sure to keep anyone who might be so
> > capable either A- In awe of them, or B- Labelled (or Beaten) in such a
> > way as to keep them down from them.
>
> The sad thing, however, is that if the bully is a young boy, people
> just shake their heads and go, "Tsk tsk, boys will be boys." If the
> bully's a girl, then she's often chastized for not being ladylike and
> nice and sweet and pink and frills. So, the boy bullies are basically
> told what they're doing is ok. The girl bullies are perhaps driven
> more to it because they feel they can't even be proper girls. Where
> does that get anyone? It gets us a society where guys feel it's right
> and proper to be bullies if they're so inclined. Business, politics,
> etc. are full of them.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. The Bullies you had to
look out for in -either- case (IME) were the ones that adults just simply
could -not- believe might do such a thing. And it was much easier for a
girl to convince adults of such a thing than a boy.
Make of it what you will. I'm sure this can come off as some
Patriarchal contempt for the possibility that a girl could hurt a boy, or
that a girl -would- hurt a boy, but I've seen it happen. Mind you,
generally not to -that- extent (I honestly wonder if the girl in question
might not have been an actual case of a sociopath. She fit the definition
one gets from the media at any rate. I never got hurt but once, and was
bright enough to steer the hell away from her and encourage anyone I knew
to as well, but in retrospect she scares me more know than she did then)
but even my little sister knew she could sweettalk her way through stuff
that woulda gotten my butt blistered - .

> > None of which reflects on the abilities of the Bully. He/She may
> > be intelligent, strong, charismatic, in their own right (Indeed often
> > are. Most Bullies get that way because other Bullies at one time
> > perceived them as some sort of threat. In My Experience anyway), However
> > their inner lack of confidence forces them to bully others to avoid being
> > bullied. That a Patriarchal (Androarchal?) society is inherently a
> > society based on this form of bullheadedness I have no qualms conceding.
> > I just don't see that a Matriarchal (Gynarchal - Whatever) society would
> > be any improvement. I've -met- female bullies. The are -just- as screwy
> > as male bullies. The argument does not stand.
>
> Agreed. Bullies are often low in self esteem, self worth, or self
> confidence deep down. The problem is that they turn that into causing
> people around them to feel the same way. Kind of "Misery loves
> company" in a highly antisocial form. And, yes, bullies exist in both
> genders. However, IMO in a matriarchal society it would be less
> tolerated.

Erg . . . Without actually trying it I can't say. It -could- be
that your right, I can see arguments for and against it. My -intuition-
is that in a Matriarchal society females would be allowed and men would
be in the category women are in (I.e. - Fewer, but nastier when they
arise). The only example I can come up with off the top of my head is in
one of the Polynesian peoples, and men are certainly treated like dirt in
it, (Sorry - can't remember details off the top of my head) but one
sample doth not a statistical chart make. It's also a very primitive
tribe as well, not even in good parallel with early europe.
I suppose to -know- we'd have to actually -try- it, and if I'm
-right- then the women would be just as stubborn about giving up power as
the men are today, and I'm not -that- anxious about proving myself right
-

> A friend used a term I found rather interested the other day: "Female
> Pre-Eminence." Her personal beliefs are that women aren't,
> themselves, "superior" to anyone. They're more that those things
> which fall into the "feminine" are beyond necessary to keep those
> things which are considered "masculine" in check. She feels that
> which is "feminine" (I think, after talking with her about this for a
> while) should have slightly higher value, so it can stand against the
> more aggressive "masculine." I think sometimes the folks who focus on
> "women" and "men" are being too literal. I personally think in terms
> of "feminine" and "masculine," both of which are in all of us. That's
> why I tried to ask someone to list what they consider "Feminine" and
> "Masculine," but it was once again taken too literally. This isn't a
> new principle, check out the Yin and the Yang.
>
> > I -hate- to argue semantics, but I'm not -quite- sure what your
> > intention is here. Do you mean that (In a fair contest) Any woman would
> > beat any male, that the average woman would beat the average male, that
> > some women would beat some men (I don't doubt tis true) or what? I can be
> > beaten by some males in my best abilities, and by some women. Why would I
> > suppress the women and not the men? I do my best, in -any- arena, against
> > any competition, to win with honor, or to lose having fought well and
> > honorably. Winning is funner (Actually, losing to a student may be funner
> > yet, but that's a different argument - ), but I'd rather lose
> > having fought well than win dishonorably. (Ye Gods. I sound like Jonnan,
> > Son of Mogh - )
>
> Some folks consider anyone who considers themselves to be a woman, a
> woman. So, if you had a massively built weightlifter, born male,
> considering himself to be a woman...well, there you go. I know, more
> games of semantics, but so many folks here seem to enjoy them so
> much. I wish people would focus more on what folks mean instead of
> what they're literally saying (not directed at you in particular,
> Jonnan, more at the group in general). Jonnan at least will admit
> that he may not be following the meaning, and tries to reply as best
> he can according to what he thought folks said. Others like the
> little game of "Well, you didn't capitalize that i, so I'm going to
> assume you meant just any network of networks instead of _the
> Internet_." Isn't that just a wee bit childish?
>
> Note: Yes, it's true. "internet" is just a network of networks.
> "Internet" is _the Internet_, that thing we're all sending our e-mail
> over. :)
>
> > My original question still stands. Why? More precisely, why would
> > one care to copy the worst attributes of the oppressor, determined that
> > to protect yourself you must keep another down, unable to possibly cause
> > harm. Certainly Women must rule themselves. -Anyone- must rule
> > themselves, for Freedom, within the limits of the mind at least, is the
> > right and privilege of any sentient being.
>
> Well, for one thing, remember this...not everyone here agrees on what
> Female Supremacy is, what it should be, or what the world should be
> like when FS "is." All you can do is talk to individual people about
> their beliefs. I think it's hard to discuss something you hold near
> and dear to your heart when you've got a group of people demanding
> that you immediately explain why your personal beliefs are the
> TRUTH...I dunno, I find that a bit overwhelming. It's like going onto
> any religion's mailing list and saying, "Right now, tell me why I
> should believe in YOU people." We're not evangelists. We're here
> because we have deep, personal reasons for being here. The way to
> understand is to get to know the people first. The reasons will
> come.

Have I been -that- pushy? If I have I sincerely apologize, I
didn't -intend- to come off that way. Part of this is that my one
demonstrable talent is as a devils advocate, as as it happens in this
case the opposing position actually -does- match the position I tend
towards, so I debate a bit more fiercely than possibly I might otherwise.
If in the process I've gone beyond the realms of polite debate
and feeling out people's points of view, I apologize for that.

> > Is Matriarchy, as you see it, merely an inversion between the
> > bullied and the bullier? And if so, why would it be an improvement?
>
> No. My idea of the Matriarchy doesn't involve enslaving any gender.
> Nor saying any gender has no use/purpose/worth. How's that for a
> start?
>
> Dee-Ann
>
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 09:10:18 1996


Patricia wrote:

>since women are so illogical (not) has it never occured to anyone as not
>being very logical...that this god created everything in "its" image.
>and on this planet at least it is the female of the overwhelming
>majority of species that give birth...life...
>yet we are asked to believe on the biggest scale..the universe
>...a male (the masculine principle) gave birth to it...... it is not
>logical, does not flow...the female principle flows...the male principle
>bumps and grinds......(a joke sort of)

>Patricia

It certainly has to me ! The idea that the male principle "gave birth" to
anything is (IMO) preposterous ! The male principle is (again IMO) "inert",
sterile, without the animating force / energy of the Feminine Principle, a
fact so amply demonstrated by the age old reality of the Kali / shiva "dance".

Having both a long term interest in Theaology, and never seeming to bump
into any Theaological contruct that fitted where I was at, I synthesized /
distilled my own.

No, I'll not force it upon the whole List, as I know some on the List don't
appreciate such discussions and as such, it may be to far off topic.
However, if anyone would like to receive a copy of a short outline I have
done, I'd be glad to send it to you. However, you should be aware that it is
totally and completely "Dianic" ... it has *no* male god dieties at all, nor
any, as such, input from the male principle. It is a totally Feminine view
of Creation ... a completely Feminine Theaology construct. If such would
upset you, don't ask for it. I am not interested in defending it nor
discussing it for the sake of intellectual nit picking ... it is after all,
a statement of "belief", with no effort made to be anything but that. I am
just offering it to anyone who, like myself, hungers for more that expresses
these subjects from a completely Feminine viewpoint.

If you ask and it's awhile before you hear back from me, don't worry, I'll
get to it .... sometimes, life gets in the way of what I really like doing .

Kalika

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Wed Sep 18 08:47:09 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:
Re: Undeliverable Mail
Re: Undeliverable Mail
Value of males, aka the Brain thing
Female/male brain differences
excrete
Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Female/male brain differences
Re: Female/male brain differences

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:02:43 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Undeliverable Mail
Message-ID: <323E14D3.1D60@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jet, I think you typed in the wrong...return email address in your
options under Mail and News Preferences...folder: Identity....line: your
email...think you have jet@nwlink.,com...or some such...
Patricia


leather wrote:
>
> Jet, Thank you for responding and validating my post on raising children. I
> tried to respond back to both of your addresses but they both came back as
> undeliverable... so I will use the list... just this once. :)
>
> >Subject: Connected in more than one way
> >
> >I noticed your return address has zephyr.net in it. Are we members of
> >another similar family?
> >
> >It is also my understanding that you are in Seattle? I am in Portland...
> >perhaps we will meet at some point and find yet more in common!?!
> >
> >I lavish in the strength, experience, and hope of the Women on this list
> >and feel completely validated for who I am!
> >
> >BTW, I had a totally cool experience this last weekend. I went to Lincoln
> >City (on the coast) and was renewed through the use of healing crystals and
> >stones. I received a vision of My path by a spirit guide and it is very
> >good. Did you know that women can be mistaken in pursuing their feminine
> >power by using their masculine traits??? I just learned this... more will
> >be revealed. :)
> >
> >Leather
>___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:26:49 -0700
From: jet
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Undeliverable Mail
Message-ID: <323DF049.11BF@nwlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Noble wrote:
>
> Jet, I think you typed in the wrong...return email address in your
> options under Mail and News Preferences...folder: Identity....line: your
> email...think you have jet@nwlink.,com...or some such...
> Patricia
>

Patricia--

Thanks, I think I've got it fixed. I took out the , and it seems to be
working better now. Please try it again.

Jet
--


Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die,
life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly.
--Langston Hughes

Jet Tenley Phone: (206) 527-0492
Jet Enterprises Fax: (206) 517-3038
aka Lady Jet Email: jet@nwlink.com

Services to help you find more balance in your life...

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:49:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: Kalika
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Value of males, aka the Brain thing
Message-Id: <199609170049.RAA13337@netbox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

To add a bit to my earlier post regarding male hemispheric capabilities or
lack thereof, and Female capabilities, I would like to share what is quoted
below. I concur with this quote completely, and it states, most probably
better that I could, my "take" on the matter. I have been asked previously
if I "hated" males, etc. and have said on List, that "no I don't, I just see
them and their roles as different from what is the norm at this time (in a
patriarchal world).

The following are quoted from :

"Gospel of the Goddess", by Pamela Suffield and Her husband, William Bond.,
1989, Artemis Creations Pub., Brooklyn, NY . Pages as noted.

(I cannot recommend this book highly enough, it is *soooo* relevant and
right on for today and the movement towards a Matercentric world / world view.)

P. 42-43

"One of the ways in which women's power will benefit society is by the
proper use of men who are geniuses. We have spoken before of how the man's
brain is designed. He can access his intellect or his intuition, but not
both, unlike a woman, who is able to balance both sides of the brain and use
them at the same time. When a man manifests genius, he uses his intuition,
leaving his intellect out in the cold. This often causes instability, and
sometimes madness, since the intellect is needed for everyday life in
patriarchal society. All patriarchal men are also unstable, of course, even
when they do not employ intuition. The exclusive use of the intellect,
however, is such a fundemental bed rock of society that they are classes as
sane. Many male geniuses have died young, committed suicide, drank
thenselves to death, or been incarcerated in institutions for the insane,
becuase they could not cope with the flood of information coming from their
right brain. Those who have survived, either switched back and forth between
intellect and intuition, or relied on a strong and stable woman to take care
of them. While women had no power within society, the insanity of both
intuitive geniuses and intellectually oriented men went unchecked. When men
made moves towards contacting the Goddess, unless they managed to fit a
stereotype of creativity, they would be repressed." .... "When women have
more power in society, male geniuses will be able to tap into the Great
Mother without fear, because they will always be looked after. At present
there is a hugh reservior of untapped potential in the human race, because
the rigidity of our society prevents its development. This will not be the
case in a Matercentric society, in which men are voluntarily subservient to
Women, because there will be no fear of uncontrolled men wrecking havoc and
destroying the fabric of society. Men will be free to use both intellect and
intuition, knowing that neither they nor anyone else will come to any harm."

"Another growing manifestation of the Goddess is the increasing number of
male mediums. In patriarchal society, most mediums have been women, because
it has been easier for women to contact their intuitive side and receive
information from the Great Mother. There is no guarantee that the
information will not be distorted by the medium of course, and many women
have been guilty of this. Now that we are moving into a Matercentric era,
many men are becoming mediums. They are likely to be much better mediums
than women, provided they are stablized and allowed to feel safe by the
control of a strong women. The reason for their success is that they are
able to go more deeply into the intuitive side of their brain without the
information being censored by the intellect, as happens in women. The
possibilities opened up for mankind by this direct contact with the Great
Mother are tremedous. We will be able to travel far, far beyond the limited
universe discovered by patriarchal society, into realms of timelessness
underrate of until now."

I feel this speaks for itself.

Kalika


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 22:07:45 -0500
From: New User
To: femsupremacy
Subject: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id: <9609170212.AA19750@mhv.net>
content-length: 1501

-- [ From: New User * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] --

V. interesting information in this thread. Makes me wonder if women didn't
evolve speech first, or if they initially spoke a distinctly more complex
version of the language. Perhaps because they needed more verbal skills for
the intense business of raising children and forming community with the
other females of their kin group. Males might have relied on only limited
subsets of the language, enough to get them through hunting together, food
gathering in general and probably through fighting as a group against other
kin groups' males. Males eventually caught up in the sense of acquiring the
vocabulary, but we have never caught up completely.

Perhaps human males, should be seen as specialist forms, produced by human
females to serve them in much the same way that nearly all ant species
produce warrior castes to fulfill specific functions. The problem for women
was that as humans continued to evolve and then take over the world numbers
grew to the point where the combat function overcame the power of women's
discussion function in forming societies.

In technologically advanced societies women's power over discussion and
cooperative work can come to the fore again.


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:18:16 +1100
From: Austin Hendrikse
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: excrete
Message-ID: <323DFC58.35AB@ozemail.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This recent thread which has been going around, i am probably too late
for, but here goes.
Two mexicans in a cantina, one asks the other, have ever heard of Speedy
Gonzales, the other one answers, Si-Si.
Honly yesterday i waz riding in ze forest, when ziz ombre steps out from
ze tree, wiz ze big pistola, an e sez to me, hey Pedro get off ze orse i
am going to rub you, well i ver quickly get off ze orse, an ziz ombre e
sez, drop your pants i am going to shoot you, i done do ziz, so he
shoota ze big pistola, mya conjones zay shrink as he fares ze pistola,
i am so frightened i sheet myself, an ziz ombre he laught so very mucho
an he says to me on your knees ombre an eata ze excrete and he fores ze
pistola again i nota spik but kneel down an ziz man he laughs so mucho
zat he droppa ze pistola, as quick a i can i picka up ze big pistola
an tell heem now u eata der excrete.
You ask me if i know Speedy Gonzales, why honly yesterday, we haz lonch
togezer.That's got rid of that.
in my younger mcho days i came across a book by Magnus Hirschfield
entitled "Sexual anomilies and Perversions" this book changed my whole
life-style, it was so Hot for me. In this book was a case history of a
Viennese doctor who kept a mistress [lower case] a week before he would
come to see her, she had to exsist solely on a diet of marzipan, then
when the appointed time arrived, the meal already having been prepared
was presented upon a golden dish whilst the doctor stood before his
mistress and with a golden teaspoon, delicately consumed the dainty
morsel. The book didn't mention if it was a cold collation, or not.
i used to like marzipan too. bye for now, austin

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:22:08 GMT
From: Peter Saxton
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Doing all the things that need to be done
Message-ID: <323da4fd.507680333@post.demon.co.uk>

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:16:50 -0700, Jet wrote:

>Dee-Ann--
>
>Leave it to you to point out the obvious... ;D
>
>> A nice start would be mates who are willing and _do_ chip in at least
>> half of the necessary work at home. ;) Too many women are expected
>> to keep the house clean, get dinner ready, chauffer the kids, raise
>> the kids, etc. while too many men think this work is beneath them.
>
>It's funny! I do these things as an everyday occurrence, but have
>no one to share these jobs with. My ex doesn't even pay the child
>support he's supposed to ($26,000 + behind even with the gov't taking
>half his legal money), so I am looking for a sub/mate to help with
>these. Someday i will find that person. In the meantime, I do what
>I can... :/
>
>> It's the attitude of "beneath" that has to change.
>
>I've heard this from many men...that they don't want to do "women's
>work." And they have this sneer to their voice when they say
>women's work. What do they do when they are single? Have their
>girlfriends do it or Mom? Probably, they do. It is too bad that
>the women in their lives support them in this. Giving them "free"
>labor.
>
>Not only does it
>> keep them from doing their fair share of the work...it also allows
>> them to see women as "beneath" them because the women _do_ do that
>> work.
>
>Exactly. We do that work because we don't want to live in squalor.
>Have you ever smelled most men's apartments after they have lived
>there for a year or more? It has that "batchelor pad" smell...not
>clean, kind of old and oily and dirty smelling. (I did not say all,
>mind you, I said most). The only time they move is when they can't
>stand their own filth...and because the women in their lives won't
>clean up for them. Smart women... :)
>
>Jet
>
I am the kind of sub who finds women who haven't thought about Female
Supremacy and I am too worried to openly tell a woman that I am
submissive therefore think one of the ideal ways to introduce a woman
to it is by me displaying a willingness to do housework - especially
in a woman's home. I say to the woman that she should sit down and
relax while I do the washing up. If I see a woman doing any housework
I ask to do it and combining this with my eagerness to open doors,
carry her bags, etc and my general respect she soon gets to feel a
very special person - which of course she is!

Quite often I take my eagerness to carry bags to extremes! I was
walking home on evening and I saw a woman who lived in the flat next
to mine carrying shopping bags. I asked to carry her bags and combined
with my briefcase it was quite a load. I wouldn't let her carry any
and I ended up with bags under my arms and I held one between my teeth
- she thought this was very funny as I struggled down the road and she
walked by my side carrying nothing!

A few days later she had a drink in my flat and she was sat in a chair
and I positioned myself on the floor at her feet. She picked up a
chopstick and as I looked at it she said: "I shouldn't have to hold
this. It should be between your teeth!" and started laughing. She held
it out and I put my mouth around it and looked at her. She laughed
even more and patted me on the head and said I reminded her of a puppy
dog. With this I dropped the chopstick at her feet and started
panting. She picked the chopstick up and threw it across the room and
said: "Fetch!" I crawled after it and brought it back. Without giving
every detail it led to her being very happy with my behaviour and when
a woman is happy with me I'm happy!

This shows how preferable it is for men to please women.

peter

Peter Saxton, from London
peter@psaxton.demon.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:41:35 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-ID: <323E481F.4BC7@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Amen, brother
Patricia


New User wrote:
>
> -- [ From: New User * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] --
>
> V. interesting information in this thread. Makes me wonder if women didn't
> evolve speech first, or if they initially spoke a distinctly more complex
> version of the language. Perhaps because they needed more verbal skills for
> the intense business of raising children and forming community with the
> other females of their kin group. Males might have relied on only limited
> subsets of the language, enough to get them through hunting together, food
> gathering in general and probably through fighting as a group against other
> kin groups' males. Males eventually caught up in the sense of acquiring the
> vocabulary, but we have never caught up completely.
>
> Perhaps human males, should be seen as specialist forms, produced by human
> females to serve them in much the same way that nearly all ant species
> produce warrior castes to fulfill specific functions. The problem for women
> was that as humans continued to evolve and then take over the world numbers
> grew to the point where the combat function overcame the power of women's
> discussion function in forming societies.
>
> In technologically advanced societies women's power over discussion and
> cooperative work can come to the fore again.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
> For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
> mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:57:59 +0100
From: Grant Nightingale
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960917095759.0068e458@popmail.i-way.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 22:07 16/09/96 -0500, New User wrote:
>-- [ From: New User * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] --
>
>Makes me wonder if women didn't >evolve speech first, or if they initially
spoke a distinctly more complex >version of the language. Perhaps because
they needed more verbal skills for >the intense business of raising children
and forming community with the
>other females of their kin group.

1. In this model, how do male children escape acquiring "complex language"
from their mothers?

grant.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 06:44:11 -0800
From: leather@zephyr.net (leather)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Grant wrote...

>1. In this model, how do male children escape acquiring "complex language"
>from their mothers?

I think, probably, when the male (child) reached a certain age, they took
their place with the other males and the complexity of language was not
maintained. It was an issue of survival for the male to "fit in" with other
males.

Leather

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />
leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
\ /
http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
\/Y\/
http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
_____/__\______
toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:20:32 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-ID: <323EDDE0.6C0E@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It may be that as much as women tried to teach them if the brain
connections are not there they are not there....and then they are taken
away quite early to be with the men and whatever evolutionary reason
they may have had to change is gone. They simply would not have needed
it to survive as hunters. Its sort of like .. you can train him to sit
and pee with the seat down, but as soon as he gets with the guys...you
know he will revert to standing and peeing and forgetting the seat.
Patricia
>
> >1. In this model, how do male children escape acquiring "complex language"
> >from their mothers?
>
> I think, probably, when the male (child) reached a certain age, they took
> their place with the other males and the complexity of language was not
> maintained. It was an issue of survival for the male to "fit in" with other
> males.
>
> Leather
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: zbobz
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-Id: <199609171704.KAA16014@switzerland.it.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 04:24 PM 9/16/96 -0500, you wrote:

> Hmmm - interesting. If so, why isn't there a larger margin of
>difference in SAT's between men and women. Not -totals-, but I would
>expect that men would consistently score much higher in math and women
>score much higher in english. The first time I took them, I scored
>exactly the same in each . . .
> Jonnan
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know (but see a speculation below). In regard to the "if so" part I
offer the following which is quoted from a text book by Anne Anastasi,
called Differential Psychology. Anne Anastasi was a recognized authority in
the field of testing (at least when I was in school), and has published
numerous text books in the area.

"Intelligence tests are also unsuited for group comparisons for a number of
reasons. First it should be noted that certain intelligence tests have been
deliberately constructed so as to eliminate sex differences in total scores.
This is well illustrated by the Stanford-Binet ... . The fact that no
significant sex difference in IQ was found in the standardization sample of
the 1937 Stanford-Binet is therefore an index of the care with which this
procedure was followed, and has little or no bearing upon sex differences in
intelligence. ... Whether boys or girls obtain higher IQ's depends upon the
items included in the test. When no deliberate effort has been made to
exclude sex differences from the test, there has generally been a tendancy
to favor girls. This follows from the fact that the intelligence tests
consist so largely of verbal items, on which girls are superior. In so far
as the tests depend upon memory, girls have an additional advantage. More
over, many intelligence tests are validated against school achievement, in
which girls also excel, especially at the elementary school level."

...

"Female superiority in verbal or linguistic functions has been noted from
infancy to adulthood. This difference is found in almost every aspect of
language development that has been studied, and has been reported with
remarkable consistency by different investigators. ... Girls maintain
their superiority in many aspects of verbal functioning throughout the
elementary and high school level. ... Girls usually excel in speed of
reading and in such tests as opposites, analogies, sentence completion,
story completion, and dissected sentences. Relevant data are provided by
investigations using separate verbal tests, as well as by the analysis of
subtest scores on intelligence tests. The over-all superiority of girls on
a number of common intelligence tests results in part from the predominance
of verbal content in such tests."

Perhaps Anastasi's discussion of high-school age groups hints at a reason
why there may be SAT score parity. "Studies of high-school age groups with
Thurstone tests of Primary Mental Abilities showed a significant difference
in favor of girls in Word Fluency (W), but not in Verbal Comprehension (V),
in which sex differences tended to be negligible and inconsisent.
Similarly, in the normative sample of the Differential Aptitude Tests, girls
excelled significantly in Language Use, but the Verbal Reasoning test
yielded small, negligible differences in favor of boys. It should be born
in mind, of course, that high school boys are a more select group than high
school girls - a difference which would affect the results of some of the
above investigations."

There are two threads in what She says above. (1) Verbal ability is too
broad a concept. There are more narrowly definable sub-components of verbal
ability that may be measured and in some of these Girls are not necessarily
superior. Tests that measure verbal ability more in terms of verbal
subcomponents in which Girls do not excell would then not show a difference
between Females and males. (2) The population of Female and male test takers
at any given age/educational level reflects the operation of differential
selection processes. I won't argue the basis of Her statement above, but
apparently by high school males represent a more capable select subset of
all males (born) than is true of Females: comparing just a (slighltly)
higher part of the male ability curve with the full Female ability curve.
While I won't go out on a limb by suggesting that I know what selection
processes would differentially affect Female and male SAT takers, I would
certainly think that many kinds of gender related differential selection
would be going on at and before that age.

One last thing. While I'm not familiar with the SAT (never took it, never
studied about it, never gave it a thought) I am somewhat familiar with the
GRE which is kind of like the graduate school version of the same thing. On
the GRE (at least when I knew about it) Women did in fact do better on the
verbal part and men better on the quantitative parts. Big differences?
Depends on what you think big is for a test score difference (and that can
be a bit deceptive in testing for methodological and statistical reasons).
zbobz

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 12:17:10 -0500
From: falcon@sbc.mwol.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Female/male brain differences
Message-ID:

FE>At 22:07 16/09/96 -0500, New User wrote:
FE>>-- [ From: New User * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] --
FE>>
FE>>Makes me wonder if women didn't >evolve speech first, or if they initially
FE>spoke a distinctly more complex >version of the language. Perhaps because
FE>they needed more verbal skills for >the intense business of raising children
FE>and forming community with the
FE>>other females of their kin group.

FE>1. In this model, how do male children escape acquiring "complex language"
FE>from their mothers?

FE>grant.

that is very true...
in the book "When God was a Woman" by Merlin Stone
that women created the art and means of writing... no doubt... women
were the first to create language.
tsb
falcon


___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #22
***********************************************

From - Thu Sep 12 16:31:38 1996


At 10:37 PM 9/11/96 -0400, imagery@biddeford.com wrote:

>It is now time for The Great Whore to appear...

Oh my heavens YES! Come on IN, Old Gal, pull up a chair! But not before we
have read Barb Walker's chapter on Prostitution, so we are fully ready to
appreciate HER! ;)

>Men fear Her, they quiver at Her feet and then...

They are judged, the way they judged us!

MOTHER OF THE UNIVERSE, CREATOR OF WORLDS, COMPASSIONATE ONE:
In Your embrace, Death Himself must die!





Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 16:30:52 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Female Birth of the World
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: God/Goddess Worship
please
The Feminine Principle Creates !
Support for "Yoni" Web Site.
Strength in Numbers
3rd Annual Conference of the Women's Freedom Network Oct. 12-13, Washington, DC
more goddesses
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:33:08 -0700
From: morte@interlog.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-ID: <32376854.99B@interlog.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> PS - this isn't intended to vilify Aristotle either. Going by his
> original works it's pretty obvious that he would never have condoned the
> extremes his teachings were taken to. Nonetheless it was essentially his
> arguments that were taken to those extremes, no one elses.
> JW


His teachings were extreme in themselves. I mean to vilify Aristotle
only because Charles Dogwin admired him. I don't like his vermiculate
spooge on my rose-colored glasses.

Thanques all zee same.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:35:32 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-ID: <323768E4.3515@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jonnan West wrote:
> Study history. The French Terror, The rise of the Nazi Movement in
> Germany, even the Protestant/Catholic wars in England, prove that I don't
> need to fear the people I know.

Patricia replies:

yes, all in the form of Patriarchy..where you blindly follow the
leader...women where certainly not responsible for any of those...they
are the inevitable.....power trip of Patriarchy..where one boy has to
show the other boy he can be king of the mountain.
Patricia

and I do know history...
and as a Biology major, as an undergraduate at the university just a few
years ago. I did my work study under a federal grant that was funding
work in Terraforming...millions to the university to study the growth of
phytoplankton under the most adverse conditions.....
they are studing the possibility of placing solar panels around mars to
melt the polar ice caps and bring water to the planet...if they can get
fluid h2o they can introduce life....phytoplankton...
commonly known as blue green algae: the living stuff that came out of
the soup...probably out first real living ancestor on this planet.....
don't patronize me with you college education....I have one too.
Patricia

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 18:40:13 -0700
From: Spirit Wind
To: femsupremacy-digest@renaissoft.com
Subject: Female Birth of the World
Message-ID: <3238BB7C.10BC@crosslink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Patricia wrote:
> yet we are asked to believe on the biggest scale..the universe
> ...a male (the masculine principle) gave birth to it...... it is not
> logical, does not flow...the female principle flows..

The biblical account of creation makes it clear that it was the female
person of the Godhead who moved upon the waters and gave birth to the
world, working with the other two persons of the Godhead. On this one,
your logic is totally in tune with a very old book. There is only one
person responsible for the universe, and that's God. Your perception of
God is just as valid as anyone's, and you usually try to get to the
heart of the matter.

By the way, I will be out of town for twelve days, but will catch us to
your masterpieces when I come back.

We can do or say whatever we want and I believe God still loves and
accepts us, giving us time to get to know the Spirit that quietly speaks
to us. When you enter into theological waters, you always get lot's of
responses, and sometimes say things that if you waited, and read it
twelve hours later you might not say. But, the heart can be right, and
searching for truth, even if anger seeps out everywhere, even when
unintended.

Have a great week all!

Spirit Wind

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:23:54 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-ID: <3237662A.221F@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

SOMEONE ASKED:

> Again, please define what -you- mean by the term Matriarchy for
> me, too avoid confusion

Patricia answers:

I think part of the problem here is that you are thinking of women
ruling in a Patriarchal system. The revolution is getting rid of the
Patriachal system. No more I'm the man so you do as I say, but a
decentralized power system where decisions are reached in a very
different way. I think what the some of the men here are doing is only
seeing power the way it is now...from the top down. Matriarchy is a
whole different system.

and while women may be "good" or "bad" in this Patriarchal system...it
is an alien land and we do the best we can. Some get truly beaten down,
some beat the system at its own game. Some take on the mannerisms and
style of men...to survive and feed their children...but even so we
really have to scale to judge womens way of doing things...because we do
not have the power to design the SUPERSTRUCTURE...when we do...It will
be very different. and if men can't imagine what they don't know and
are afraid of what they don't know...perhaps what we are saying here
guys..is hey..look around you...is life good....most of you will say
no...and so we are saying then trust our vision to be a better one...and
we as women believe that it is......Thats how I call it.

Another problem with the Matriachal idea of men, some men, I think is
the idea that we don't have the beginning, middle and end down on rock
somewhere...that is scary...but women are weavers...we will weave...with
men we hope ( I still like some of you) a planet and world where
everyone.....women, children, men, animals, the planet itself can live
and grow and be and become.....
MY VISION
Patricia

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 19:06:24 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-ID: <32377020.7CF1@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

since all the anthropoligists were men...it's not so odd that we heard
it all from the male point of view...
from another point of view and much information about the goddess read:

THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS, by Elaine Pagels......she finds an early time of
christianity when God was both male and female to the
Christians....however some of the boys wanted to go centralize in Rome
and they excommunicated all those who would not buy into the centralized
-one male god theory.

WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN, by Merlin Stone

any book by Mary Daly...but GYNECOLOGY, the metaethics of feminism..is a
must read for any man who says he loves women.

Isis was the Goddess of the ancient egyptians.
Ishstar was her name to the Assyrians.
Innanna to the Sumerians.
Astarte to the Phoenicians
These are not European cultures.....

and this is for Dee Ann and Laura and Jet and Sorceress and Leather and
all the wonderful and wonder-filled women on this list, and to the
hundreds of millions of women who have been wounded, scared, altered,
killed by Patriachy...and those millions who have survived and thrived
even within the half-life that Patriarchy has allowed them..each is my
sister..this is a gift of a favorite poem of mine that I identify with
totally.

HER KIND, by Anne Sexton

I have gone out, a possessed witch,
haunting the black air, braver at night;
dreaming evil, I have done my hitch
over the plain houses, light by light;
lonely thing, twelve-fingered, out-of-mind.
A woman like that is not a woman, quite.
I have been her kind.

I have found the warm caves in the woods,
filled them with skillets, carvings, shelves,
closets, silks, innumberable goods:
fixed the suppers for the worms and the elves;
whining, rearranging the disaligned.
A woman like that is misunderstood.
I have been her kind.

I have ridden in your cart, driver,
waved my nude arms at villages going by,
learning the last bright routes, survivor
where your flames still bite my thigh
and my ribs crack where your wheels wind.
A woman like that is not ashamed to die.
I have been her kind.

PATRICIA

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 19:23:14 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: please
Message-ID: <32377412.4F54@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

show a little respect for those here who do not believe in your god or
gods....you keep on speaking in absolutes....like you know the truth and
those who believe differently are stupid..or off base....just cause it
was written in some damn old book...hell Mein Kampf is a book too.
in matriarchy their will be room for people to believe what they believe
and no room for shoving what you believe down someone elses throat...or
anything else for that matter.

I can say with as much certainty from my belief system that there is NO
GOD. you don't have to believe that, that's fine. but I will not try
to beat you over the head that it is an absolute.....
there is no more proof for my position then there is for yours...and you
have the right to believe what you must....i respect you position,
please respect mine..and please don't try to convert me.

the way the white man converted my people here...was to kill them if
they did not becomes christians......I will never become a
christian...and if your Christ made me in his image...and if there is a
heaven where he exists (we can have pie in the sky when we die, by and
by)...he must be saying..and right on sister.

As to knowing my Native American heritage...I know it very well. The
MicMac had male and female shamans...people became who they were based
on who they were...not the shape of their skin. In marriage the husband
moved into the womans family, clan...and property was matrilineal...
see I was born to this.
Patricia
Patricia

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:53:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: Kalika
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: The Feminine Principle Creates !
Message-Id: <199609112353.QAA19450@netbox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Patricia wrote:

>since women are so illogical (not) has it never occured to anyone as not
>being very logical...that this god created everything in "its" image.
>and on this planet at least it is the female of the overwhelming
>majority of species that give birth...life...
>yet we are asked to believe on the biggest scale..the universe
>...a male (the masculine principle) gave birth to it...... it is not
>logical, does not flow...the female principle flows...the male principle
>bumps and grinds......(a joke sort of)

>Patricia

It certainly has to me ! The idea that the male principle "gave birth" to
anything is (IMO) preposterous ! The male principle is (again IMO) "inert",
sterile, without the animating force / energy of the Feminine Principle, a
fact so amply demonstrated by the age old reality of the Kali / shiva "dance".

Having both a long term interest in Theaology, and never seeming to bump
into any Theaological contruct that fitted where I was at, I synthesized /
distilled my own.

No, I'll not force it upon the whole List, as I know some on the List don't
appreciate such discussions and as such, it may be to far off topic.
However, if anyone would like to receive a copy of a short outline I have
done, I'd be glad to send it to you. However, you should be aware that it is
totally and completely "Dianic" ... it has *no* male god dieties at all, nor
any, as such, input from the male principle. It is a totally Feminine view
of Creation ... a completely Feminine Theaology construct. If such would
upset you, don't ask for it. I am not interested in defending it nor
discussing it for the sake of intellectual nit picking ... it is after all,
a statement of "belief", with no effort made to be anything but that. I am
just offering it to anyone who, like myself, hungers for more that expresses
these subjects from a completely Feminine viewpoint.

If you ask and it's awhile before you hear back from me, don't worry, I'll
get to it .... sometimes, life gets in the way of what I really like doing .

Kalika

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:20:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: Kalika
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Support for "Yoni" Web Site.
Message-Id: <199609120020.RAA20204@netbox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thank you Dee-Ann, for noting the wonderful Web Site, "...Yoni..." . This
Australian "WebZine !" is a wonderful site and I encourage anyone to check
it out. It was a real "hit" when I first came across it .

Kalika


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:20:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: Kalika
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Strength in Numbers
Message-Id: <199609120020.RAA20213@netbox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Just a thank you to Jet, for noting how wonderful it was / is to have found
this Femsupreme List ! Here, Here ! in support of that.

Also, thanks, Jet, for reminding all of us, just how precious it is to be a
member of this List and to be in contact with / share with, so many other
Femsupreme devotees / practictioners. I know I have gone thru more List's
that I can count, looking for exactly just such a List as this. Many, many
thank you's to Dee-Ann for making it all possible.

There is strength in numbers and let's all cheer the fact that the numbers
of Femsupreme adherents are growing all the time !

Kalika


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:29:40 -0800
From: leather@zephyr.net (leather)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: 3rd Annual Conference of the Women's Freedom Network Oct. 12-13, Washington, DC
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Sorry for the bandwidth but I thought this would be of some interest to "us"

Leather

>Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:03:48 -0400
>X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>To: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
>From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
>Subject: 3rd Annual Conference of the Women's Freedom Network Oct. 12-13,
>Washington, DC
>
>
> RETHINKING SEXUAL HARASSMENT
> The Third Annual Conference of the Women's Freedom Network
> Washington, DC
> The Doubletree Inn
> October 12-13, 1996
>
>Is the war on sexual harassment helping or hurting the cause of
>gender equality?
>
>Is a broad and vague definition of sexual harassment trivializing
>a serious problem, promoting hypersensitivity and victimhood, and
>chilling human relations in the workplace and in school?
>
>IS THERE A BETTER WAY?
>
>Five years ago, the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court
>nomination of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill's testimony before
>the Senate Judiciary Committee made the issue of sexual harass-
>ment the center of national attention. Some called it a "teach-
>in" that raised America's consciousness about the abuse of women
>in the workplace. Others worried about a budding "new Victorian-
>ism" that portrayed women as delicate creatures who need protec-
>tion from rough talk.
>
>Concerns about sexual harassment have become a permanent part of
>the American legal and cultural landscape. Yet the meaning of
>the term has expanded dramatically. Experts in sexual harassment
>prevention and litigation make such comments as "There is no hard
>definition of sexual harassment" and "Whether harassment has
>occurred is in the 'eye of the beholder.'" While there is broad
>agreement that workers should be protected from sexual extortion
>and unwanted physical contact, many believe the war on harassment
>has turned into a witchhunt against all sexual expression in the
>workplace.
>
>Now, the Women's Freedom Network takes a look at the sexual
>harassment debate, tackling such questions as:
>
>* Does it make sense to treat sexual harassment as a form of sex
>discrimination? Should harassment be defined by a gender-neutral
>or gender-specific standard?
>
>* Is the existing concept of sexual harassment fundamentally
>flawed? Can a more clearcut and objective definition be devised?
>
>* Sexual harassment laws and the First Amendment: Is there a
>conflict?
>
>* Is a work environment free of sexuality or discomfort a possi-
>ble or desirable goal?
>
>* Is women's as well as men's behavior at the office being
>increasingly targeted by the sexual harassment police?
>
>* Are there ways to deal with offensive sexual behavior in the
>workplace without making a formal complaint?
>
>October 12
>
>5:30 -- registration
>6:00 -- cocktails
>7:00 -- dinner/panel discussion
>
>October 13
>
>9:00 Sexual Harassment Law: Problems and Paradoxes
>10:30 Panel A: Feminism, Sexual Harassment, and the Media
> Panel B: Taking Harassment to Court
>
>12:00 Lunch
>
>2:30 Panel A: Academic Freedom and Sexual Harassment: The
> *Real* Chilly Climate on Campus?
> Panel B: From Hostile Environment to Sterile
> Workplace: Harassment Policies and Human Relations
>5:00 Roundtable discussion:
> Equal Rights or a New Pedestal? Sexual
> Harassment, Law, and American Culture
>
>Speakers include:
>
>* Kingsley Browne, Wayne State University School of Law
>* Ferrel Christensen
> Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta (Canada)
>* Elizabeth Coleman
> President, Bennington College
>* Catherine Crosson
> Indiana University School of Law/Feminists for Free
> Expression
>* Barry Dank
> Department of Sociology, Univeristy of California (Santa
> Cruz)
>* Karen DeCrow, attorney, former president, National Organization
> for Women
>* Candace DeRussy, board member, State University of New York
>* Kate Fillion
> Author, *Lip Service*/
> journalist, *Saturday Night* (Montreal)
>* Joanne Jacobs
> Columnist, *San Jose Mercury-News*
>* Kathleen Neville
> Senior vice president, Hill & Knowlton
>* Ellen Frankel Paul
> Deparment of Political Science, Bowling Green University, OH
>* Rita Simon
> Department of Sociology, American University/President, WFN
>* Tama Starr
> President/CEO, Artkraft Straus Sign Corporation
>* Joan Kennedy Taylor
> Author/National Director, Association of Libertarian
> Feminists
>* Eugene Volokh
> UCLA School of Law
>* Deborah Weiss
> Stanford Law School
>* Michael Weiss, Esq.
>* Cathy Young
> Columnist, *Detroit News*/Vice President, WFN
>
>For conference registration information please call Beth Bangert
>at (202) 885-6245 or 1-800-575-3313
>Or send e-mail queries to Cathy Young at 71774.1305@compuserve.com
>
>
>****************************************************************************
>Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
>Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
>on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
>Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229
>****************************************************************************
>

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />
leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
\ /
http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
\/Y\/
http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
_____/__\______
toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:33:56 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: more goddesses
Message-ID: <323792B4.4011@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

the Aztec had the Goddess Coatlicue (she of the serpent woven skirt).

The Celts have Brynhild

In the Tantric books of India the home of the goddess is called
Mani-dvipa (The island of jewels). She lives in the garden of wish
fulfilling trees. The beaches of the isle are of golden sand. the
waters of the ocean are the nectar of immortality. This goddes is red
with the fire of life; the earth, the solar system, the galazies of
far-extending space, all swell within her womb. She is the world
creatrix. She encompasses the encompassing, nourishes the nourishing
and is the life of everything that lives. She is the death of
everything that dies. She is the most terrible and the most good. The
whole round of existence is accomplished in her.

from the Sacred writings the Shastras of Hinduism


and, of course, Kali...The Ferry across the Ocean of Existence.
from Ramakrishna

The Nigerians have a Goddess who has no name other than the Mother of
the Gods, from Joseph Campbell...the hero with a 1,000 faces

The Spider Woman of the Southwest Native Americans is a grandmotherly
woman who lives underground and helps guide spirits both ways from the
land of the dead to the land of the living,,,and from the land of the
living to the land of the dead...the spider woman, by weaving her web
can control the movements of the Sun. Any person who comes under the
protection of this Cosmic mother cannot be harmed.


and Joseph Campbell muses:
Full circle, from the tomb of the womb to the womb of the tomb, we come:
an ambiguous, enigmatical incursion into a world of solid matter that is
soon to melt from us, like the substance of a dream...
Men through their recorded history in myth, religion and folklore seek
to be the hero .. and in all these recorded events and myths they say
ultimately that the hero is the man of self-achieved submission. But
submission to what...asks Joseph Campbell in the Hero with a thousand
Faces.....the women on this list would answer...I think, many of
us...submission to the feminine..the female..the life principle.

Patricia

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:47:48 -0800
From: leather@zephyr.net (leather)
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>JW ASKED:
>
>> Again, please define what -you- mean by the term Matriarchy for
>> me, too avoid confusion
>
>Patricia answers:
>
>I think part of the problem here is that you are thinking of women
>ruling in a Patriarchal system. The revolution is getting rid of the
>Patriachal system. No more I'm the man so you do as I say, but a
>decentralized power system where decisions are reached in a very
>different way. I think what the some of the men here are doing is only
>seeing power the way it is now...from the top down. Matriarchy is a
>whole different system.
>
>and while women may be "good" or "bad" in this Patriarchal system...it
>is an alien land and we do the best we can. Some get truly beaten down,
>some beat the system at its own game. Some take on the mannerisms and
>style of men...to survive and feed their children...but even so we
>really have to scale to judge womens way of doing things...because we do
>not have the power to design the SUPERSTRUCTURE...when we do...It will
>be very different. and if men can't imagine what they don't know and
>are afraid of what they don't know...perhaps what we are saying here
>guys..is hey..look around you...is life good....most of you will say
>no...and so we are saying then trust our vision to be a better one...and
>we as women believe that it is......Thats how I call it.
>
>Another problem with the Matriachal idea of men, some men, I think is
>the idea that we don't have the beginning, middle and end down on rock
>somewhere...that is scary...but women are weavers...we will weave...with
>men we hope ( I still like some of you) a planet and world where
>everyone.....women, children, men, animals, the planet itself can live
>and grow and be and become.....
>MY VISION
>Patricia


Not to ride Patricia's coat-tails... but... "what she said"...

Leather

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />
leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
\ /
http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
\/Y\/
http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
_____/__\______
toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:04:42 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-ID: <323799EA.765F@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Oh leather..you are not riding on my coat tails....between us here we
women have helped me to be able to verbalize that thought. It was
written as much by you as me.....instead of coat tails...lets just get
on a broom stick built for two...and hi ho silver, away.
Patricia


>
> Not to ride Patricia's coat-tails... but... "what she said"...
>
> Leather
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
> leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
> \ /
> http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
> \/Y\/
> http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
> _____/__\______
> toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
> For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
> mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".

___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #12
***********************************************


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re: Good&Bad Will
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
God/Goddess Worship
Re Egalitarianism vs Supremacy
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Re: God/Goddess Worship
Re: Good&Bad Will
Re: God/Goddess Worship


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:12:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-Id: <199609111812.NAA00366@indy2.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 4216

> > Jonnan wrote:
> >
> > I've seen enough erroneous conclusions by females not to believe
> >that they have a better grasp on the universe than we do. Not that men
> >have it going, I just don't see that anybody can claim to have any gender
> >specific vision that defines superiority.
>
> I'm not speaking in "generic" terms of females who are comfortable or
> resigned to existing in our "current" patriarchal society, per sey (sp?)...
> but rather, a Supreme Female population (and I know there are several
> versions of Female Supremacy... I'm talkin about "My" version... sorry for
> the lack of clarification... have I "totally" lost you yet???)

I'm not sure of how you define 'your' version - You probably
already stated it somewhere, but I either missed it, or got confused
jumping from post to post. To -my- mind, Matriarchy must be defined as
what I stated earlier, a system where leadership is not awarded to the
best person, but to the best woman. If this contradicts your definition
then I'm going to need it spelled out for me. (Remember, I'm male. We
need these things spelled out in simple, easy to use words. Try not to
use multiple syllables if you can avoid it - )
I'm also not sure how this affects the fact that females make
judgment errors too - Are you saying that the 'Supreme' Females don't
make the errors we mere mortals are so accustomed to? Define please!

> > Sick moment - you've been warned. If the Blind person -under- the
> >elephant is unfortunate enough, they will be in the midst of what the
> >government does best and exclaim 'Oh NO - RUN - IT'S A POLITICIAN!'
> >
>
> ROFL... really!!!
>
> >Well, if a Matriarchal society is in place, then
> >the obvious effect is that opportunities are displaced from being
> >available to the best person, to being available to the best women.
>
> Do you mean kinda' like it is now??? only, instead of to the best woman...
> the best "two" men? teehee. ;)
>
> >I am
> >against Patriarchy because I can't -stand- the thought of a daughter of
> >mine having the potential for greatness and being consigned to mediocrity
> >because of her gender. I'm against Matriarchy for precisely the same
> >reason. Self-Centered - Well Sure. Hey - I'm shallow. I've learned to
> >live with it. I've even learned to enjoy the state - .
>
> Why do you say that Matriarchy will oppress men/males? Unless that is what
> that good-ol-boy- Webster defined it as... I have been and will continue
> to support and defend Female Supremacy... not to encourage the destruction
> of the male gender or their value... just to balance the scales and, yes,
> perhaps let them swing the other way a bit and see what comes of it.

Again, please define what -you- mean by the term Matriarchy for
me, too avoid confusion - Thanks

> It's the "generic" opressed or otherwise controlled woman that worries me
> in a Matriarchy that worries me... that is the "revenge" motivation I spoke
> of... and not at all flattering to the FemSupreme theory I hold dear. If
> you give power to someone who has never held command... they may careen out
> of control, creating the same destruction that our current male dominated
> society has done for too long!
>
> > Of course if you -do- plan on destroying us none of that applies
> >-
>
> I'll let you live... BTW, do you do windows? :)

You don't want me - I'm stubborn, homely, irritating,
argumentative. and impoverished. I don't do windows but once in a blue
moon either. Although I -do- vacuum, cook, and do dishes . . . -

> Leather
>
> PS- for what it's worth... I really enjoy your posts too. You have a
> delightful sense of humor!

Well Thank you - I was afraid I might come off as frivolous,
which I'm trying to avoid (But it is -so- hard for me to suppress my
weirdness - )
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:26:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-Id: <199609111827.NAA00595@indy2.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1834

>
> On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Jonnan West wrote:
>
> > To be fair - the -major- instigator of the 2000 years or so of
> > Patriarchal BS was not the Romans Per Se. It was Aristotle. Along with a
> > number of other factors of course, Aristotle however was a male
> > chauvinist.
>
> Aristotle didn't invent any of that, however. It was how he was raised; it
> is what the Greek society of his time was thoroughly permeated with.

Invent - No. Create the Rationalizations that spread throughout
the two and a half millenia since - Yes. Nor was it prevalent across that
entire Alexandrian sphere of influence until that time.
To be blunt - Aristotle was a chauvinist even given the time and
place. He deliberately went to the effort of expressly speaking against
land ownership and inheritance rights for widows and female descendants
at a time when a number of things -could- have been turned around.
The -average- rights throughout that sphere of influence were
(Aproximately) equal to those in the US just before the womens movement
came into full swing. Obviously they were in no immediate danger of
suddenly become nations of Amazons. Yet the slow progress towards
equality was essentially stopped by the teachings of one man - Aristotle.
Jonnan
PS - this isn't intended to vilify Aristotle either. Going by his
original works it's pretty obvious that he would never have condoned the
extremes his teachings were taken to. Nonetheless it was essentially his
arguments that were taken to those extremes, no one elses.
JW

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:40:39 -0700 (PDT)

Dee-Ann wrote:
> Some interesting biological points. There isn't just 1 kind of
> sperm. There are actually a number of different kinds of sperm. One
> kind of sperm is a blocker/killer sperm, designed to attack any sperm
> that come from a different man than the one who "generated" it. This
> pretty much killed the arguments that women were genetically made for
> monogamy. :)

How so? Seems to me the existence of such hunter-killer sperm would be
likely to indicate a genetic proclivity for the males to rape than it
would indicate anything about the females of the species. With such
sperm, the more 'virulent' males would maximize the survival of their
genes by indiscriminate copulation with the largest number of females,
regardless of the females mating preferences or whether or not she'd
already mated. It's a specialization on the part of the male, not the
female. I'd be curious as to which species have such characteristics;
I'd hope it wasn't humans. Then again, might explain a lot if it were.

-- \_awless is : A wolf, wild at heart, with a heart of darkness.
-- Chase Vogelsberg (lawless@netcom.com / lawless@eskimo.com)
--
-- The trouble with hell is that the ambient temperature is above the flash
-- point of alcohol. Which means you can't linger over your drink.
-- Alexis A Gilliland

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:44:50 -0400
From: Laura Goodwin
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com, femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960911184450.006c17d0@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>yes, men ought to start...all of them..getting down on their hands and
knees and begging the female >principle nature..to forgive them for what
they and there gender have done and to begin to work....to try to >heal,
lick, kiss her wounds and make them all better.....
>Patricia

Absolutely! I know men will be expecting women to clean up their mess for
them as usual, but they are going to have to take on their share of it,
which at first will be most of it. You can see the tide is turning, because
men worldwide, more and more, are requiring each other to show respect to
women and the earth. Women are using their influence to change the rules of
the game and the way it's played, even in areas where they are still
enslaved.

*My Fantasy* What if all the men who are incompetant or evil were replaced
by women who are competant and decent? The guys who are competant and
decent could stay where they are, the women who merit it would be able to
use their talents, and the only people who suffered would be the ones who
deserve to!
Laura Goodwin


"Who is she who appears like the dawn
Fair as the moon, bright as the sun,
Terrifying as an army with banners?"

(Song of Solomon 6:10)

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:50:10 -0500 (EST)

>
> Marriage and keeping one woman was clearly to the advantage of men..so
> they could be sure the children were their children...If it was not to
> the advantage of men as the Centrist..manifest destiny mongers conquered
> the tribal cultures..it would not exist....
> "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a ceremony."
>
> What I am wondering about this thread of oh! lets all be equal now...
> are men beginning to fear that those they have oppressed for so long,
> will rise up and treat them the same way they treated the people they
> oppressed? Is this like a plea bargain...well babe I won't fight
> against your equality anymore if you don't treat me like I treated
> you...ok babe.

Well- First and foremost is the simple fact that -I- have not (To
the best of my knowledge) mistreated women. I don't take credit for what
my parents do well, I don't take credit for what they do badly. I was
born male in a culture that is slipping towards equality, and the fact
that that culture has -been- immature is not a crime that -I- can be held
responsible for. I never liked it. I was brought up better than that,
and I have never supported it. That's not a plea bargain. That's a
statement that I am innocent of any crime.
I will confess to a certain trepidation of the mob mentality. If
somehow it suddenly came to pass that by divine command me and all other
men were property of women, I would not fear the women I know. I'm
generally considered a decent person by most of them - ).
The danger is the mob mentality that might accompany such a situation.
Study history. The French Terror, The rise of the Nazi Movement in
Germany, even the Protestant/Catholic wars in England, prove that I don't
need to fear the people I know. It's the people caught up in the
emotional backlash of the moment that -don't- know me that I need to be
afraid of.
Wouldn't -anyone- have a certain amount of trepidation under
those circumstances? -

> Does this rattling mean we are coming to the point of no return and we
> may really see the light at the end of the
> tunnel.....proclaiming...FREEDOM!!!
>
>
> It is a false argument. It is one they used in South Africa to preserve
> apartheid..which is by the way pronounced (apart-hate). The whites were
> so afraid that those they formerly treated so badly would treat them the
> same way if they got power...it is so ingrained they cannot see that
> there is another way.
>
> The government in South Africa is now racially mixed and there has been
> no movement...not even one slight inclination by black leaders to begin
> doing to the oppressor what was done to them. It is a different mind
> set...when you see all others only in relation to you....you expect them
> to behave as you. It is once again the difference between centrist,
> hierarchal thought....(I am the center of the universe) and tribal,
> communal knowledge that I am us, and we swim or sink together.

A fact that gives me great hope for the future. That one who
-has- been oppressed may break their chains and achieve equality, without
becoming oppressors themselves, gives me great hope for the race as a
whole.

> It is the difference between the slash and burn mentality that has so
> shamelessly despoiled our mother the earth who are now spending billions
> on space flight and terraforming..coming up with real scientific ways to
> make Mars habitable for humans after we have nothing left on Earth.
> Your tax dollars are funding this research......

Billions? With all due respect, Look at Nasa's Budget. One of the
few profitable pursuits made by the US government, and it's essentially
stagnent, and has been since before Challenger.
One of the few times we didn't hurt a thing, made an immense
profit from the information brought back, and it's stagnent Milady.

> Instead of staying home and setting right the mess we have made here and
> yes, men ought to start...all of them..getting down on their hands and
> knees and begging the female principle nature..to forgive them for what
> they and there gender have done
> and to begin to work....to try to heal, lick, kiss her wounds and make
> them all better.....
> Patricia
>
> Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:54:32 -0700 (PDT)


Jonnan West wrote:
>
> Actually, as -I- understand anthropology, God/Goddess worship as
> such is almost entirely limited to the Indo-European set of languages and
> religions, none of which originate in Africa. African Worship is (As I
> understand it) primarily animistic in nature (If that's the correct
> term). Of course, Africa is not all of one piece and if you say there
> were tribes of Goddess worshippers in Africa, I don't dispute the
> possibility, but it's news to me. (I hope I didn't misunderstand your
> meaning)

Just one example off the top of my head. The Egyptians most certainly
had Goddesses and Gods. There were also some mother creators in some
of the Native American traditions, I believe.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 16:39:12 -0500


Thanks to Micah Martin for bringing up the name of Emmy Noether. I hadn't
read her name in a long time. This list is getting exciting, what with
Aristotle being pounded over there in that other thread and Emmy Noether of
ring theory algebra in the 1920s, popping up in this one.

Anyway, I take your point regarding Weightlifting etc. No ignominy required.
As it stands today you're right, women can't do better than men in certain
athletic events. What I'm saying is that women were kept out of most of
these endeavors until quite recently and that has distorted our view of
men's and women's abilities. Today's women's records in track and field are
already caught up to where men were about 1950-55. Women still haven't
broken the 4 minute mile, but does anyone doubt that they will eventually?
Once you have hundreds of millions of women playing sports their level of
competitiveness will rise sharply. Same with everything else.

Getting back to femsupremacy vs egalitarianism....I still maintain that it
will be in the workplace that women will outcompete men. It isn't that every
woman is capable of working harder than every man, but I have a strong
feeling that more men than women are slackers, incapable of hard work over
the long haul. It's that narrow competitive edge that will make the
difference in the advanced economies over the next century or so. And one
should note that in the US today there are more young women in college than
men. Egalitarianism? It's my hope that in a society where women have control
over their own economic destinies as well as childbirth and nurturing there
will be a slackening of hierarchical pressures. Men will turn to more
frivolous pursuits, perhaps, seeking to win mating priviliges by peacock
type displays since they will no longer control the flow of resources needed
to nurture the young. If women have economic control will they allow for a
more egalitarian type of society to evolve? I would like to think so. Others
may disagree.







___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:36:09 -0700 (PDT)


>Jonnan West wrote:
>>
>> Actually, as -I- understand anthropology, God/Goddess worship as
>> such is almost entirely limited to the Indo-European set of languages and
>> religions, none of which originate in Africa. African Worship is (As I
>> understand it) primarily animistic in nature (If that's the correct
>> term). Of course, Africa is not all of one piece and if you say there
>> were tribes of Goddess worshippers in Africa, I don't dispute the
>> possibility, but it's news to me. (I hope I didn't misunderstand your
>> meaning)
>
>Just one example off the top of my head. The Egyptians most certainly
>had Goddesses and Gods. There were also some mother creators in some
>of the Native American traditions, I believe.
>
>Dee-Ann


Hmm... a quick trip to _Goddesses in World Mythology_ by Martha Ann &
Dorothy Myers Imel revealed a large number of African goddesses. The first
section is devoted entirely to them (excluding Egypt, which has its own
extensive section). I quit counting them around 100--which was still in the
"E" listings. Modern worshippers in Voudoun, Umbanda, etc. would be very
surprised to hear that God/dess worship was non-African!

--Lady Phoenix


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:02:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: God/Goddess Worship
Message-Id: <199609112202.RAA07782@indy1.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2030

>
> Jonnan West wrote:
> >
> > Actually, as -I- understand anthropology, God/Goddess worship as
> > such is almost entirely limited to the Indo-European set of languages and
> > religions, none of which originate in Africa. African Worship is (As I
> > understand it) primarily animistic in nature (If that's the correct
> > term). Of course, Africa is not all of one piece and if you say there
> > were tribes of Goddess worshippers in Africa, I don't dispute the
> > possibility, but it's news to me. (I hope I didn't misunderstand your
> > meaning)
>
> Just one example off the top of my head. The Egyptians most certainly
> had Goddesses and Gods. There were also some mother creators in some
> of the Native American traditions, I believe.
>
> Dee-Ann
>
Um . . . Not trying to pick nits here, but Eygpt, while
physically within africa, is culturally within the Indo-European Mindset,
due to it's separation from the mainlands of Africa by barriers such as
the Sahara Desert and the area (whose name I do not recall - apologies)
where the Nile Originates. Although there is some evidence of Eygption
trade along the East African coastal areas, -possibly- even past the cape
of storms and up towards the Indian sub-continent, the -primary- trade
routes were the mediterranean basin and over the Sinai penninsula (sp?),
where they influenced and were influenced by the peoples of the Arabian
penninsula, the Tigris-Euphrates cultures, and of course the Greek,
Roman, and Carthaginian cultures.
I'm not as familiar as I like with the American-Indian cultures,
but I -do- recall some of the Spider-Woman mythos, and wouldn't be at all
surprised if you were correct in mother-creator mythos within that region.
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 17:13:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West

> >>
> >> Actually, as -I- understand anthropology, God/Goddess worship as
> >> such is almost entirely limited to the Indo-European set of languages and
> >> religions, none of which originate in Africa. African Worship is (As I
> >> understand it) primarily animistic in nature (If that's the correct
> >> term). Of course, Africa is not all of one piece and if you say there
> >> were tribes of Goddess worshippers in Africa, I don't dispute the
> >> possibility, but it's news to me. (I hope I didn't misunderstand your
> >> meaning)
> >
> >Just one example off the top of my head. The Egyptians most certainly
> >had Goddesses and Gods. There were also some mother creators in some
> >of the Native American traditions, I believe.
> >
> >Dee-Ann
>
>
> Hmm... a quick trip to _Goddesses in World Mythology_ by Martha Ann &
> Dorothy Myers Imel revealed a large number of African goddesses. The first
> section is devoted entirely to them (excluding Egypt, which has its own
> extensive section). I quit counting them around 100--which was still in the
> "E" listings. Modern worshippers in Voudoun, Umbanda, etc. would be very
> surprised to hear that God/dess worship was non-African!
>
> --Lady Phoenix

I may be wrong then - I'll check it out. It was -my-
understanding that the African 'Goddesses' would be more closely ascribed
to the Nymphs of Greek mythology than the definition of a god or goddess
as having dominion over an entire aspect of nature (-my- definition of a
god or goddess as opposed to say a nymph, satyr, lamia et al. It
generally works for me but may not be what someone else uses). I will see
what I can find out.
I'm completely unfamiliar with Umbanda, but I know modern Voudoun
is a mixture of a number of african religions with christian overtones,
at least to the best of my understanding. I only know a very few
practicianers though (This is Indianapolis, not New Orleans - ) and
I've found books on the subject notable for the number of times they
contradict each other - .
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:13:49 -0700
From: Noble


oh the killer sperm is quite real....was all over pbs and nova....
they showed pictures of them and the difference....some are very active
swimmers...those are the ones who make babies and many just sit waiting
for sperm to come by and then they go right into them and kill
them...was fascinating to watch...
yup it is true
Patricia

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 15:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: amfas@netcom.com (Coyote Sings)


> > Just one example off the top of my head. The Egyptians most certainly
> > had Goddesses and Gods. There were also some mother creators in some
> > of the Native American traditions, I believe.
> >
> > Dee-Ann
> >
> Um . . . Not trying to pick nits here, but Eygpt, while
> physically within africa, is culturally within the Indo-European Mindset,
> due to it's separation from the mainlands of Africa by barriers such as
> the Sahara Desert and the area (whose name I do not recall - apologies)
> where the Nile Originates. Although there is some evidence of Eygption
> trade along the East African coastal areas, -possibly- even past the cape
> of storms and up towards the Indian sub-continent, the -primary- trade
> routes were the mediterranean basin and over the Sinai penninsula (sp?),
> where they influenced and were influenced by the peoples of the Arabian
> penninsula, the Tigris-Euphrates cultures, and of course the Greek,
> Roman, and Carthaginian cultures.


Yep: Mediterranean Africa was culturally connected with
Mediterranean Europe and the Middle East until separated from
Europe my the Islamic conquest in the 7th & 8th Centuries.

There was one big long cultural 'freeway' system running from
India to Spain and North Africa and even up to Britain.

Indo-European newcomers (Greeks, Celts, Hittites, Persians, etc.)
somewhat disrupted it at first, then bought in, but only after
they had pretty much destroyed the old Goddess religions.

The Nile also acted as a north-south 'freeway' to the cultures
of sub-Saharan Africa, as did the west and east coasts of Africa.

> I'm not as familiar as I like with the American-Indian cultures,
> but I -do- recall some of the Spider-Woman mythos, and wouldn't be at all
> surprised if you were correct in mother-creator mythos within that region.

The Aztec / Nahua Goddess Coatlicue is an interesting and bloodthirsty
Kali look-alike among others I have heard about.

North Americans might make special efforts to learn more about
their 'host' aboriginal religions. I was fortunate to have been
brought up with much of this, and remember Zozobra, Dawn Woman,
Corn Maiden, etc from when I was a kid.

Woivoka's Ghost Dance is also a powerful metaphor/ exemplar for
what we might be about here, and it seems that Wise Women and
aboriginal sages and shamans might make common cause.

My handle is no accident, either. ;]
--
coyote sings / man and sky / amfas@netcom.com

Show up. Lighten up. Pay attention. Feel awe. Make it count.
The rest is hidden.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #11
***********************************************

From - Thu Sep 12 09:09:30 1996


Thanks to Micah Martin for bringing up the name of Emmy Noether. I hadn't
read her name in a long time. This list is getting exciting, what with
Aristotle being pounded over there in that other thread and Emmy Noether of
ring theory algebra in the 1920s, popping up in this one.

Anyway, I take your point regarding Weightlifting etc. No ignominy required.
As it stands today you're right, women can't do better than men in certain
athletic events. What I'm saying is that women were kept out of most of
these endeavors until quite recently and that has distorted our view of
men's and women's abilities. Today's women's records in track and field are
already caught up to where men were about 1950-55. Women still haven't
broken the 4 minute mile, but does anyone doubt that they will eventually?
Once you have hundreds of millions of women playing sports their level of
competitiveness will rise sharply. Same with everything else.

Getting back to femsupremacy vs egalitarianism....I still maintain that it
will be in the workplace that women will outcompete men. It isn't that every
woman is capable of working harder than every man, but I have a strong
feeling that more men than women are slackers, incapable of hard work over
the long haul. It's that narrow competitive edge that will make the
difference in the advanced economies over the next century or so. And one
should note that in the US today there are more young women in college than
men. Egalitarianism? It's my hope that in a society where women have control
over their own economic destinies as well as childbirth and nurturing there
will be a slackening of hierarchical pressures. Men will turn to more
frivolous pursuits, perhaps, seeking to win mating priviliges by peacock
type displays since they will no longer control the flow of resources needed
to nurture the young. If women have economic control will they allow for a
more egalitarian type of society to evolve? I would like to think so. Others
may disagree.







___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Fri Sep 13 12:56:35 1996

Hello everyone:

Would someone be so kind as to send me a copy of this poem? The mail server
was down and I did not receive any posting for the 9th & 10th. I must have
missed some interesting posts judging from the volume and callibre of
replies. Thanks!!


>Patricia wrote-
>
>Thank you for the beautiful and haunting poem...it is one of my favorites
>as well. Here is a class example of a woman who was squashed by
>patriarchy... I can understand and this is why I subscribe to this list
>and I am trying to raise my daughter with the high ideals I see here.
>I do not want her to have to struggle as we do and hope that by the time
>she is an adult, it will be more equal or at the very least much more
>supportive of women. If not, perhaps she will be another of the catalysts.
>
>Jet
>
>>and this is for Dee Ann and Laura and Jet and Sorceress and Leather and
>>all the wonderful and wonder-filled women on this list, and to the
>>hundreds of millions of women who have been wounded, scared, altered,
>>killed by Patriachy...and those millions who have survived and thrived
>>even within the half-life that Patriarchy has allowed them..each is my
>>sister..this is a gift of a favorite poem of mine that I identify with
>>totally.
>>
>>HER KIND, by Anne Sexton
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
>For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
>mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".
>
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 16:31:18 1996

>A woman like that is not ashamed to die.
>I have been her kind.
>
>PATRICIA

One of my fav poets is Sylvia Plath:

(from *Lady Lazarus*)

"...Herr God, Herr Lucifer,
Beware, Beware.
Out of the ash I rise with my red hair
And I eat men like air."


Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 16:31:19 1996


At 05:02 PM 9/11/96 -0500, Jonnan West wrote:
>>
>> Jonnan West wrote:
>> >
>> > Actually, as -I- understand anthropology, God/Goddess worship as
>> > such is almost entirely limited to the Indo-European set of languages and
>> > religions, none of which originate in Africa.

*The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets* By Barbara G. Walker. All
the Goddesses and Gods) from every corner of the earth including Africa from
the beginning of "time".

Jonnan, you are not cute. The cute well has run dry. Do some homework and
come back.

Laura Goodwin


"All forms of fanaticism are suspect. The humane society
of the future, which we now build, will appreciate diversity
and reward tolerant behavior."

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 09:10:15 1996


since all the anthropoligists were men...it's not so odd that we heard
it all from the male point of view...
from another point of view and much information about the goddess read:

THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS, by Elaine Pagels......she finds an early time of
christianity when God was both male and female to the
Christians....however some of the boys wanted to go centralize in Rome
and they excommunicated all those who would not buy into the centralized
-one male god theory.

WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN, by Merlin Stone

any book by Mary Daly...but GYNECOLOGY, the metaethics of feminism..is a
must read for any man who says he loves women.

Isis was the Goddess of the ancient egyptians.
Ishstar was her name to the Assyrians.
Innanna to the Sumerians.
Astarte to the Phoenicians
These are not European cultures.....

and this is for Dee Ann and Laura and Jet and Sorceress and Leather and
all the wonderful and wonder-filled women on this list, and to the
hundreds of millions of women who have been wounded, scared, altered,
killed by Patriachy...and those millions who have survived and thrived
even within the half-life that Patriarchy has allowed them..each is my
sister..this is a gift of a favorite poem of mine that I identify with
totally.

HER KIND, by Anne Sexton

I have gone out, a possessed witch,
haunting the black air, braver at night;
dreaming evil, I have done my hitch
over the plain houses, light by light;
lonely thing, twelve-fingered, out-of-mind.
A woman like that is not a woman, quite.
I have been her kind.

I have found the warm caves in the woods,
filled them with skillets, carvings, shelves,
closets, silks, innumberable goods:
fixed the suppers for the worms and the elves;
whining, rearranging the disaligned.
A woman like that is misunderstood.
I have been her kind.

I have ridden in your cart, driver,
waved my nude arms at villages going by,
learning the last bright routes, survivor
where your flames still bite my thigh
and my ribs crack where your wheels wind.
A woman like that is not ashamed to die.
I have been her kind.

PATRICIA

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 09:09:32 1996

>Jonnan West wrote:
>>
>> Actually, as -I- understand anthropology, God/Goddess worship as
>> such is almost entirely limited to the Indo-European set of languages and
>> religions, none of which originate in Africa. African Worship is (As I
>> understand it) primarily animistic in nature (If that's the correct
>> term). Of course, Africa is not all of one piece and if you say there
>> were tribes of Goddess worshippers in Africa, I don't dispute the
>> possibility, but it's news to me. (I hope I didn't misunderstand your
>> meaning)
>
>Just one example off the top of my head. The Egyptians most certainly
>had Goddesses and Gods. There were also some mother creators in some
>of the Native American traditions, I believe.
>
>Dee-Ann


Hmm... a quick trip to _Goddesses in World Mythology_ by Martha Ann &
Dorothy Myers Imel revealed a large number of African goddesses. The first
section is devoted entirely to them (excluding Egypt, which has its own
extensive section). I quit counting them around 100--which was still in the
"E" listings. Modern worshippers in Voudoun, Umbanda, etc. would be very
surprised to hear that God/dess worship was non-African!

--Lady Phoenix

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 09:07:08 1996


Dee-Ann wrote:
> Some interesting biological points. There isn't just 1 kind of
> sperm. There are actually a number of different kinds of sperm. One
> kind of sperm is a blocker/killer sperm, designed to attack any sperm
> that come from a different man than the one who "generated" it. This
> pretty much killed the arguments that women were genetically made for
> monogamy. :)

How so? Seems to me the existence of such hunter-killer sperm would be
likely to indicate a genetic proclivity for the males to rape than it
would indicate anything about the females of the species. With such
sperm, the more 'virulent' males would maximize the survival of their
genes by indiscriminate copulation with the largest number of females,
regardless of the females mating preferences or whether or not she'd
already mated. It's a specialization on the part of the male, not the
female. I'd be curious as to which species have such characteristics;
I'd hope it wasn't humans. Then again, might explain a lot if it were.

-- \_awless is : A wolf, wild at heart, with a heart of darkness.
-- Chase Vogelsberg (lawless@netcom.com / lawless@eskimo.com)
--
-- The trouble with hell is that the ambient temperature is above the flash
-- point of alcohol. Which means you can't linger over your drink.
-- Alexis A Gilliland

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Thu Sep 12 09:09:23 1996


At 10:28 PM 9/10/96 -0400, mike wrote:
>Hello Billy

> One
>Domina that i have known for many years works within the medical
>proffession, through many studies, it is a known fact that brown showers
>or scat has many unhealthy bacteria within it, that causes many diseases
>such as hepatitis and more, but Golden Showers are much different, where a
>golden shower has many proteins and is not a dangerous form of worship.

This is a sensitive topic, and some may think it inappropriate for the list,
but I'm personally glad it came up, since this is something that is of
compelling importance to my slave hubby too.

The health issue is important, but my personal issue with it is doing
something I personally am not attracted to, because it seems such a powerful
need in my husband. It's not a case of me serving him, any more than
comforting a crying baby is being a servant. I care for him and consider
marriage to be an agreement to help each other to survive, stay sane, and
try to be happy. He certainly does a great deal for me and for our
marriage, more than his fair share! (But that's what slaves are for!) In
general I'm very happy with my husband: he is the love of my life.

Still, I don't like this sort of play and would never have suggested it. He
begs and begs, and it gives him a pleasure and a high that is really
incredible. I like the power aspect, but the smell etc. is gross to me, and
I get no erotic charge from it at all. I'm repelled, in fact. Plus, I
can't get *good at it*. I find I have nothing but problems pissing at will,
controlling my expulsion, etc. and in general find it impossible to
accomplish these things gracefully. I admit I am not strongly motivated to
do so.

I have such mixed feelings about it. He is always thrilled with me when I
humor him and rewards my cooperation with super-submissiveness and all kinds
of favors and gifts. I cringe inside when he brags to our kinky friends,
who *are* a very understanding lot, that I so favored him recently and how
great I am...I don't want anybody imagining me that way! Gick. :/

I know several other D/s couples where the husband is a toilet slave, and
without exception it was always the guy's idea. These other wives and I
give each other *the look* (you women know what I mean) when ever the topic
comes up. We don't talk about despising the practice, or about the shame we
feel for agreeing to it. The subs seem to think that we just glory in our
power. They won't let themselves be aware of the pain this causes, because
their obsession is so overwhelming.

Bruce knows how I feel and *he respects my feelings*, but it ends up being a
thing where he has to give up his one hope of ultimate happiness every day,
hour by hour, over and over. It's like making him watch ice cream melt
while I starve him. That's fine once, but every day? For years? I mean,
for mercy's sake: we're married! We also happen to be in love. We're both
quite healthy so, for us, that is not an issue.

I do feel the need for support and encouragement, although in what form, I
can't say. One thing I don't need to hear is: "He's your slave and should
only hope for what *you* like to do." That's baloney, OK?

A difficult topic, and it even goes deeper. I just don't want to tax your
patience, my friends.

Laura Goodwin


"Who is she who appears like the dawn
Fair as the moon, bright as the sun,
Terrifying as an army with banners?"

(Song of Solomon 6:10)

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Wed Sep 11 16:54:51 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:
Re: worship the person
Re: Good&Bad Will
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Good&Bad Will
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Surrender & Bliss 1 more time
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: the ultimate taboo
Re: Re Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:58:57 -0500 (EST)

>
> usually these posts are signed by us both and believe you me, Fiona
> checks out what may be said in her name and I think very carefully
> before writing because I can guess the trouble I would be in if I got it
> wrong,
>
> this time however, it is right for me to go solo, seeing all these posts
> asking and arguing the eternal whose on top question set off another
> tack:
>
> would you love your sacred other if they were a different sex?
>
> what I adore and worship in Fiona is her person,
>
> it is quite convenient that she is female (we had enough hassle with
> older adults without adding a same sex marriage),
> but I did not choose her because of her shape and ability to bear
> children,
>
> we chose each other because we wanted each other's persons,
>
> had I been a woman or had she been a man, we still hope we would have
> chosen each other as lifelong partners,
>
> so we opt for the broad fem supremacy (that female characteristics have
> intense relevance for the needs of society to avert bullying/
> exploitation) and our private narrow one that I worship her (and she
> does the reverse), I try to give her the gift of controlling my
> sexuality simply for the mechanical reason that everything lasts longer
> and she is completely satisfied and freed from threat,
>
> but to those in fs who insist the feminine must come before the
> personal, what will (your presumed liberal values) say to gay men?
>
> our liberalism wants all the diversity of the personal to triumph over
> gender and a good dose of fs might help the process,
> but our bottom line is lets recognise/celebrate the difference:
>
> there are women who find a man and they both want the male to lead,
> there are men who find a woman and they both want Her to lead,
> there are men who find another man and maybe one takes the lead, the
> same goes for a lesbian couple,
> there are people where a member of one gender can be a centrepoint for a
> number from the other gender
>
> given the way society is, we reckon it will be enough of an achievement
> to get that far with all relationship choices respected including those
> who opt for fs/fd, but WE both think that the society ruled solely by
> women the way ours was once ruled by men will never come about, nor do
> we wish it to,
>
> let the Personal triumph (clue to our residual Christianity: this is
> what the Trinity doctrine was onto some 2000 years ago).
> robert forsythe
>
You must have something -Really- Special. I will confess to a
twinge of jealousy that I've never been able to achieve that.
Gee - I can't imagine why, I'm -so- easy to get along with. Can't
you tell? -
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dee-Ann LeBlanc

New User wrote:
>
> 1/... There's a wonderful book available from Vintage called "The Moral
> Animal" , written by Robert Wright. Offers an intriguing look into the new
> science of Evolutionary Psychology. How did we evolve the social-sexual
> patterns that we see today? In a nutshell, Wright points out that in our
> species women look to men to provide resources for the successful rearing of
> children. The evolutionary pressure in that direction is obvious. Thus
> Women need to bind men to them to keep them providing resources until the
> children are grown enough to be independent, which biologically is not much
> before the age of 12-15. Men, on the other hand, can serve their genes
> better if they move on to another woman much sooner, say when the children
> are only 5-7. We can see the outline right there for a lot of the social and
> sexual tension within human society.

Some interesting biological points. There isn't just 1 kind of
sperm. There are actually a number of different kinds of sperm. One
kind of sperm is a blocker/killer sperm, designed to attack any sperm
that come from a different man than the one who "generated" it. This
pretty much killed the arguments that women were genetically made for
monogamy. :)

This fact is actually true in a number of species. Apparantly what
happens in some animal species is that the female mates with one male
just to get him to go away (or to help look after her little ones),
then mates with others who she considers to provide better genes for
her children. I wish I could remember more specfics, but I know there
was one type of bird where the female will nest with one male, then
run off and mate with some males she considers "genetically perfect."
It was suggested (I saw this in a show on human sexuality) that the
same may apply to human woman on the biological/genetic front. The
question, "Who is better to marry, a lover or a friend?" becomes much
more interesting when you think about it in the context of this
paragraph.

Another interesting point. Men can actually subconsciously control
the amount and types of sperm they produce. If they think the woman
has had sex with someone else recently, they will produce more
blocker/killer sperm (more sperm in general, actually) than if they
think the woman has been monogamous.

> 2/... Regarding a new economic basis for FS society, such as households of
> three women and their submissive husbands:...Might it not be a better idea
> to pick up on Hillary Clinton's theme-- It takes a village!

Well, Hillary may use it, but she wasn't the first to say it. :)
And, the fact that a child is raised by all of their surroundings
(their village) is very true. Every person a child comes in contact
with shapes who they will be. That includes their choices of
entertainment.

Dee-Ann

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:48:15 -0800
From: leather@zephyr.net (leather)


> Jonnan wrote:
>
> I've seen enough erroneous conclusions by females not to believe
>that they have a better grasp on the universe than we do. Not that men
>have it going, I just don't see that anybody can claim to have any gender
>specific vision that defines superiority.

I'm not speaking in "generic" terms of females who are comfortable or
resigned to existing in our "current" patriarchal society, per sey (sp?)...
but rather, a Supreme Female population (and I know there are several
versions of Female Supremacy... I'm talkin about "My" version... sorry for
the lack of clarification... have I "totally" lost you yet???)

> Sick moment - you've been warned. If the Blind person -under- the
>elephant is unfortunate enough, they will be in the midst of what the
>government does best and exclaim 'Oh NO - RUN - IT'S A POLITICIAN!'
>

ROFL... really!!!

>Well, if a Matriarchal society is in place, then
>the obvious effect is that opportunities are displaced from being
>available to the best person, to being available to the best women.

Do you mean kinda' like it is now??? only, instead of to the best woman...
the best "two" men? teehee. ;)

>I am
>against Patriarchy because I can't -stand- the thought of a daughter of
>mine having the potential for greatness and being consigned to mediocrity
>because of her gender. I'm against Matriarchy for precisely the same
>reason. Self-Centered - Well Sure. Hey - I'm shallow. I've learned to
>live with it. I've even learned to enjoy the state - .

Why do you say that Matriarchy will oppress men/males? Unless that is what
that good-ol-boy- Webster defined it as... I have been and will continue
to support and defend Female Supremacy... not to encourage the destruction
of the male gender or their value... just to balance the scales and, yes,
perhaps let them swing the other way a bit and see what comes of it.

It's the "generic" opressed or otherwise controlled woman that worries me
in a Matriarchy that worries me... that is the "revenge" motivation I spoke
of... and not at all flattering to the FemSupreme theory I hold dear. If
you give power to someone who has never held command... they may careen out
of control, creating the same destruction that our current male dominated
society has done for too long!

> Of course if you -do- plan on destroying us none of that applies
>-

I'll let you live... BTW, do you do windows? :)

Leather

PS- for what it's worth... I really enjoy your posts too. You have a
delightful sense of humor!

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />
leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
\ /
http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
\/Y\/
http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
_____/__\______
toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:01:49 -0700
From: Noble


New User wrote:

>> "The Moral
> > Animal" , written by Robert Wright.the new
> > science of Evolutionary Psychology.
> In a nutshell, Wright points out that in our
> > species women look to men to provide resources for the successful rearing of
> > children.

PATRICIA REPLIES:

This is an example of white-european-male-centered theories that have
put our world into the sad shape it is in
That is not true of all our species. In African and many Native
American tribes the village did raise the child, by-the-way..the
original quote It Takes A Village To Raise a Child is African.
In tribal cultures it was not uncommon for a child to like auntie better
and go move in with her.

New User Continues:

>The evolutionary pressure in that direction is obvious.
PATRICIA REPLIES:

The evolutionary pressure in that direction is not obvious. It was the
warring of peoples who thought the world was theres to rape and pillage
as they pleased against the cultures who thought the earth was there
mother and they were equal partners in this deal called life, and the
ultimate victory of these anti-life forces that moved us to this most
recent not evolutionary, but enforced period of women staying home alone
to raise their children.

I think it is the primal fear of the mystery of how men can prove a
child is their own .. so they should work for their OWN children..that
led men to imprison the female principle into such a limited role.

Now, of course paternity tests can determine parenthood...but that is
new...and men lived for a long time .... with a major collective fear...
heaven forbid raising a child that was not from their loins. and that
is a big difference between men and women.

Patricia
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:15:12 -0700
From: jet
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-ID: <3235F680.5AF4@nwlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

lalaura@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> pugugly wrote:
>
> > This presupposes that fear of losing power is some intellectually
> >or emotionally logical position. A Bully is a Bully...
>
> >The argument does not stand.
>
> I'm not argueing. Read Elizabeth Gould's *The First Sex*, and if you want
> to argue about woman's superiority to males, you can send a nice little
> letter to the publisher, who will forward it to her, and you can initiate a
> nice little arguement with her. :)


I have "The First Sex" at home. One of the first Fem Superiority books
I
had ever read when it first came out. Now, I would have been involved
with this much sooner, had I but known that there are so many women out
there like us, believing that women are indeed superior. Growing up in
a small Wisconsin town, there were not many women who even wanted to
associate with feminists, much less Female Supremacists. It took almost
20 years for me to find this group, and I agree with almost everything
I've read here. What I don't agree with is my perogative as a Female
Supremacist and my right as a free thinking woman to make up my own
mind about what I believe and what I don't believe.

Jet


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:12:07 -0600 (MDT)
From: Kalika


>Kalika wrote:

>>Here is another very vital point ... that being ... what "appears" to be a
>>sacrifice (the act of submission / service) turns out to be exactly it's
>>opposite ! This fact needs some meditation upon it, to see one's way to
>>reality.

>When I was young I thought the expression 'It's better to give than to
>receive" was the dumbest thing imaginable. I now appreciate just how true
>it is. Far too many men live a totally selfish lifestyle and find very
>little fulfillment as a result.

Yes, Jon, there can be great fullfillment in the act(s) of serving,
something that Western culture is sadly, quite unfamiliar with. Eastern
cultures have retained more of the understanding of this great truth.

>Is it not therefore a reverse form of selfishness for someone to expect
only >to give and therefore his partner only to receive? I deluge my
girlfriend >with gifts but more importantly provide her with emotional
support in every >way that I can. She's very appreciative, but also feels
the need to give >back, whenever she can. I have to be careful not to
overdo it, or she >feels uncomfortable.

I feel here, that you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was
trying to indicate that there is most definitely, a reciprocal interchange
between the servant and it's Superior (which for my purposes and I feel that
of this List, means a Superior Female and a subservient male. Or, as I
really prefer, the Superiority of the Feminine Principle and the subservient
reality of the male principle.)

* A thank you, too, I believe, Patricia for using these very terms which are
so near and dear to my heart.

I feel .... misunderstood ... a reciprocal interchange - For a "true"
submissive, the reward, (that which he receives from Her) is the
*priviledge* of serving Her ... what She "gives back" is the act of
"allowing" him to serve Her. Now She may give more than that, but that was
not the point I was after ... the point I was after, was this, ... the
priviledge of serving, and Her allowing him to serve, ... that, in this
interchange, there is full equality (to touch lightly on a current thread),
a full and complete exchange, ... all energies are fully and totally in
balance ! Something is offered (submission / servitude) ... that which is
offered, is accepted, and then, something is given back / granted (She
allows him to serve Her). "Meditating upon ...", was meant to be used to
"dig" a bit under the surface and see these more expansive realities.

She should never be made to feel uncomfortable as a result of your "pushing"
your submissiveness on / at Her. Remember, She must accept it, must allow
your servitude to Her or equality is at work.

>So Kalika's concept of total surrender sounds wonderful to me and highly
>erotic (I am a submissive), but only likely to work for a small proportion
>of the population.

So, total surrender .... Firstly, yes, in actuality / reality, (of a / any
given relationship) ... the reality may be one of total surrender, ...
however, I agree that such relationships are currently rare, but in the
future, IMO, will be fairly commonplace as the reality of the true nature of
the Feminine Principle and the male principle become more widely understood
/ accepted / implemented.

However, I feel that this "idea" of total surrender as viewed / understood
by patriarchal culture, is bogus ... meaning, that the above noted equality
is not something that patriarchal (male based) culture even believes is
possible, let along "sees" in this relationship. One must *not* confuse the
"act" of total surrender (if that is in fact what it is and IMO, that can be
a very wonderful and beautiful thing for both parties) ... don't confuse the
"act", with the "concept" that is typically attached to the word "total" ...
one must always remember the equality that is the reality in a "true" D/s
relationship. (IMO, a D/s relationship *does not* need to have a BDSM
component at all, in order to be a full and true D/s relationship.)
...(although personally I favor / enjoy such arraingements / activities))


>Kalika says if only more men were prepared to surrender. From my
>perspective, if only there were more Kalikas who would appreciate male
>surrender.

Why Jon, I'll take that as a nice compliment .

Kalika

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:23:35 -0700


Marriage and keeping one woman was clearly to the advantage of men..so
they could be sure the children were their children...If it was not to
the advantage of men as the Centrist..manifest destiny mongers conquered
the tribal cultures..it would not exist....
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a ceremony."

What I am wondering about this thread of oh! lets all be equal now...
are men beginning to fear that those they have oppressed for so long,
will rise up and treat them the same way they treated the people they
oppressed? Is this like a plea bargain...well babe I won't fight
against your equality anymore if you don't treat me like I treated
you...ok babe.

Does this rattling mean we are coming to the point of no return and we
may really see the light at the end of the
tunnel.....proclaiming...FREEDOM!!!


It is a false argument. It is one they used in South Africa to preserve
apartheid..which is by the way pronounced (apart-hate). The whites were
so afraid that those they formerly treated so badly would treat them the
same way if they got power...it is so ingrained they cannot see that
there is another way.

The government in South Africa is now racially mixed and there has been
no movement...not even one slight inclination by black leaders to begin
doing to the oppressor what was done to them. It is a different mind
set...when you see all others only in relation to you....you expect them
to behave as you. It is once again the difference between centrist,
hierarchal thought....(I am the center of the universe) and tribal,
communal knowledge that I am us, and we swim or sink together.

It is the difference between the slash and burn mentality that has so
shamelessly despoiled our mother the earth who are now spending billions
on space flight and terraforming..coming up with real scientific ways to
make Mars habitable for humans after we have nothing left on Earth.
Your tax dollars are funding this research......

Instead of staying home and setting right the mess we have made here and
yes, men ought to start...all of them..getting down on their hands and
knees and begging the female principle nature..to forgive them for what
they and there gender have done
and to begin to work....to try to heal, lick, kiss her wounds and make
them all better.....
Patricia



jet wrote:
>
> lalaura@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > pugugly wrote:
> >
> > > This presupposes that fear of losing power is some intellectually
> > >or emotionally logical position. A Bully is a Bully...
> >
> > >The argument does not stand.
> >
> > I'm not argueing. Read Elizabeth Gould's *The First Sex*, and if you want
> > to argue about woman's superiority to males, you can send a nice little
> > letter to the publisher, who will forward it to her, and you can initiate a
> > nice little arguement with her. :)
>
> I have "The First Sex" at home. One of the first Fem Superiority books
> I
> had ever read when it first came out. Now, I would have been involved
> with this much sooner, had I but known that there are so many women out
> there like us, believing that women are indeed superior. Growing up in
> a small Wisconsin town, there were not many women who even wanted to
> associate with feminists, much less Female Supremacists. It took almost
> 20 years for me to find this group, and I agree with almost everything
> I've read here. What I don't agree with is my perogative as a Female
> Supremacist and my right as a free thinking woman to make up my own
> mind about what I believe and what I don't believe.
>
> Jet
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Questions and comments should be sent to listmaster@renaissoft.com.
> For a list and description of supported mailing list commands, send
> mail to femsupremacy-request@renaissoft.com with the subject "help".

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:33:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micah L. Martin"

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Jonnan West wrote:

> To be fair - the -major- instigator of the 2000 years or so of
> Patriarchal BS was not the Romans Per Se. It was Aristotle. Along with a
> number of other factors of course, Aristotle however was a male
> chauvinist.

Aristotle didn't invent any of that, however. It was how he was raised; it
is what the Greek society of his time was thoroughly permeated with.


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 22:31:39 -0500
From: New User

-- [ From: New User * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] --

I thought it was highly revealing that Micah Martin's response to Laura
Goodwin's claim concerning women's abilities and men's fear of them was to
bring up Weightlifting!! How about
banking? Or cold selling securities over the phone? Or picking stocks? Or
sharpshooting? Or equestrianism? Anything other than boxing and
weightlifting which are the province of those with great upper body strength
. Take it down a few grades in terms of reliance on just upper body strength
. How many men could have taken a match off Martina Navratilova when she was
at the peak of her game? Ten or twenty? Fifty? Not too many in other words.

Goodwin's point is the interesting one though. Men have certainly done their
best to keep women down. And men are still freaky about female athletes,
females competing with males directly in team sports, females in the
workplace, etc. etc. Recall the saga of women winning the right to run the
marathon, or more recently the rumpus when a woman started beating men at
sharpshooting at the highest level. Men would no longer compete with her. It
isn't as if all women can be better than all men at any particular activity,
but some women are better than almost all men, and for some reason this is
profoundly threatening to (most) men.

I remember back in the early seventies, around the time of Spassky vs
Fischer, reading that women would just never be that good at chess. Of
course back then there weren't very many women outside the Soviet Union
playing chess at a competitive level. Then came Judit Polgar and her sisters
. Suddenly it became quite clear that if you had girls with an aptitude for
chess and you prepped them hard and made them play a lot they could become
Grandmasters(Mistresses). So far there haven't been any women to break into
the very highest reaches of the game, but there are still only limited
numbers of women who play chess competitively. No one doubts now that
someday a woman might come along who could compete with the Karpovs, Anands
and even the Kasparovs.

I would suggest that one arena where we will see the outline of an FS
influenced future is in the white collar workplace, namely the office. Take
away the old boy's network, the glass ceiling etc. and let people move up on
merit and pretty soon there's a lot of women in the upper tier.
Is it possible that women can just work harder than most men?


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:28:10 -0400
From: mike
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com, femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: the ultimate taboo
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960911022810.00675168@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hello Billy

Long time no hear, hope all is well with you. i understand your post, and
understand where your coming from, but yet not going by societal reasons,
i must disagree with you on this. i myself have fantasized the same as
yourself and also have dreamed of being the complete toilet to the Goddess i
am blessed to someday serve. but yet having a discussion with other Dominas
in the past about this one very subject, i do understand the reason why the
majority of Dominas out there do not use their slaves in this manner. One
Domina that i have known for many years works within the medical
proffession, through many studies, it is a known fact that brown showers
or scat has many unhealthy bacteria within it, that causes many diseases
such as hepatitis and more, but Golden Showers are much different, where a
golden shower has many proteins and is not a dangerous form of worship.

i guess the point i am trying to get across is that as a slave myself, i
know that the slaves health is very important, because it is a slaves
purpose in life to serve their Goddess and Owner to the fullest capibilty
that they can and beyond. if they are plaqued by disease due to such
activities, the slave would not be able to serve in that manner, which
means to me that the purpose of my existance is not worth anything. I feel
when a Domina takes ownership of a slave, the slaves purpose is to serve
150%, and that maintaining good health is important so that the priorities
of the Domina can be satisfied. You know me from the short time that we had
spent together this year as friends, on where i am coming from.

your brother slave
slave sal


___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:55:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: pgm@servtech.com
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Re Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-Id: <199609110255.WAA29224@cyber2.servtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:31 PM 9/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
>-- [ From: New User * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] --
>
>Goodwin's point is the interesting one though. Men have certainly done their
>best to keep women down. And men are still freaky about female athletes,
>females competing with males directly in team sports, females in the
>workplace, etc. etc.

Briefly speaking out loud, some men don't get freaked out by female
athletes. The recent Olympic Games in Atlanta is a case in point. The
women's basketball team was much more exciting and more enjoyable to watch
than the men's basketball team. The men came off as arrogant and
egotistical, while the women carried themselves with grace and an
understated determination. And the women's team drew over 30,000 people to
their games :)

Regards, Paul

___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #9
**********************************************

From - Wed Sep 11 16:54:23 1996


------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

femsupremacy-digest Digest Volume 96 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: white guy's religion
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Re: Peace and quiet
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Central vs. Peripheral
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:33:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-Id: <199609102033.PAA22298@indy3.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3417

>
> pugugly wrote:
>
> > This presupposes that fear of losing power is some intellectually
> >or emotionally logical position. A Bully is a Bully...
>
> >The argument does not stand.
>
> I'm not argueing. Read Elizabeth Gould's *The First Sex*, and if you want
> to argue about woman's superiority to males, you can send a nice little
> letter to the publisher, who will forward it to her, and you can initiate a
> nice little arguement with her. :)
>
> I agree that a bully is a bully and a rose is a rose. Tautologies are
> great, aren't they? :)

I didn't -say- a bully is a bully. I defined a list of traits
that (In My Experience) produced a bully, and noted that these traits
were common to either gender. That is -not- a Tautology. Your statement
that women -must- be superior because otherwise why would men fear them
is much closer to the conventional definition of a tautology.
If you wish to argue my traits that create a bully, I would enjoy
hearing it. If you wish to argue my experience that none of these traits
are solely confined to men, that is also valid. But please argue my
statements from what they state, not what they can be misinterpreted as
if one wishes to twist things sufficiently.
I apologize for getting snippish, but it strikes me that you have
pulled statements out of context twice now, and I've only put out three
or so messages. And not once did you argue with the actual -meaning- of
my post. Thank you.
Does anyone else think that I was unclear in my meaning or was
attempting circular logic of some sort?

> HellOo! First clue: this is called the femsupremacy list. There are
> :::gasp::: femsupremacists hobnobbing here! It ain't the *let's us all be
> equal* list...it ain't a ride at the fair...it ain't a midway attraction.
> Anybody who does not already suspect very strongly that women are superior
> to men will find me and my _assertions_ to be the least of their problems
> here. :)

True. And if people honestly feel that an Egalitarian attempting
to understand an opposing viewpoint is unwise, or more trouble than it's
worth, or merely a way for me to start some kind of argument without any
useful benefits, then I will withdraw. I -hope- that I have been polite
in my questions without becoming so polite that the questions I ask are
unclear. If I'm doing something inherently wrong, impolite, or being
argumentative without basis, please tell me.

> I've seen bullies too, lots of 'em, and they are _not nice_. Therefore I
> am not nice to them. But I don't argue with them, there are better
> methods. You can't sucessfully argue except with a reasonable person.
> Nevertheless, you can succeed against bullies in many ways, and that is
> what I _advocate_ we do.

But are all men bullies? If you must gain power and hold it so as
to not be threatened by any male, you are meeting -my- definition of a
bully. Is it worth the cost of becoming what one despises?

> Laura Goodwin
>
> Siddartha could wait, think and fast. I can do
> all that plus sing, dance, act and write. Good
> thing I know how to fast!
>
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 96 16:46:36 EDT
From: Jon Woolven <100410.1764@CompuServe.COM>
To: "INTERNET:femsupremacy@renaissoft.com"
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-ID: <960910204635_100410.1764_JHU158-1@CompuServe.COM>

Jonnan (the Barbarian ) wrote:
>My original question still stands. Why?
>More precisely, why would one care to copy the worst attributes of the
oppressor,
>determined that to protect yourself you must keep another down, unable to
possibly cause harm.
>Is Matriarchy, as you see it, merely an inversion between the bullied and the
bullier?
>And if so, why would it be an improvement?

You've stated you're an interloper Jonnan and therefore you're bound to work off
assumptions
of what this group is about. Most emphatically it is not about inverting
current power structures.
It is about discarding the worst attributes of the oppressor.

Many of the people on this list enjoy BDSM relationships, but when we step
beyond those realms
to discuss the potential for a better world, we talk about applying 'feminine'
characteristics.
Feminine in inverted commas, because they may not exclusively belong to the
property women,
but as I think Dee-Ann was suggesting, are more frequently found there.

I'm not sure whether an egalitarian or a fem-supreme model is better and have
revealed this
doubt here before. However, I am terrified of where a high-technology + high
testotorone future
may lead us and I'd rather err on the side of safety. I don't think it's too
melo-dramatic to
suggest that our survival may depend on this.

By the way, what is a bullier? Any relation to a bully?

P.S. to micah-l-martin

Please stop accusing other people of misrepresenting your argument whilst
blantantly
doing so to theirs. It is very irritating.

Jon

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 13:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: amfas@netcom.com (Coyote Sings)

Patricia wrote:
>
> I did not realize when I signed on that this was the lets defend Christ
> and christianity list...

It isn't, and this is my clue (it takes a lot at times) that we
_were_ wildly off-topic. The only Christianity I mean to
illuminate is my own. I will uphold _anyone's_ right to feel safe
in their religion/path here, including the atheist's. But that does
not then give me the right to intrude my path unnecessarily on others.
Answer questions, clarify, hold my own, yes. Harangue, not today.

Please see the Forsythe's 'white guys religion' for a nice
summary of my views at this point. For now, I will say no more.

> Fuck christ

Uhm, that's personal, between you and him.

> yes, she is pissed and yes, she just flamed christ

Which means somebody, perhaps several people, had their space
invaded. If I am part of that, I apologize.

Peace?
--
coyote sings / man and sky / amfas@netcom.com

Show up. Lighten up. Pay attention. Feel awe. Make it count.
The rest is hidden.

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:50:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West

>
>
> >"If black people weren't superior to white people, then white people
> >wouldn't need to handicap them so severely to keep them disadvantaged."
> >This argument won't work...
>
> Oh no? Has it never occurred to you that African-Americans *have*
> demonstrated their superiority in many ways? The terrible cost to the human
> race for their oppression can never be fully measured, but the magnificence
> of their achievements speaks volumes about what might have been, and also
> what we can hope to see when the bullshit stops. In the final analysis, the
> excellence of any person is to the credit of the whole human race. Only
> bigots think otherwise.

Superiority? No it has not occurred to me. I've met some superior
-people- of a number of cultures around the globe, but I have yet meet a
superior -race- of people.

> Africa is the mother of the whole human species. All that is human began
> there. We are all related to each other through one beautiful, big, old
> bloodline, FYI. Eve was black. The first God people worshiped was a
> Goddess and She was black. You want superiority? How's "We originated
> *everything*!" Oh, but they didn't stop there! Africans and their
> descendants have made a career out of doing amazing things! They are still
> at it! Ain't that just grand!

Actually, as -I- understand anthropology, God/Goddess worship as
such is almost entirely limited to the Indo-European set of languages and
religions, none of which originate in Africa. African Worship is (As I
understand it) primarily animistic in nature (If that's the correct
term). Of course, Africa is not all of one piece and if you say there
were tribes of Goddess worshippers in Africa, I don't dispute the
possibility, but it's news to me. (I hope I didn't misunderstand your
meaning)
I will also state for the record, that Anthropology is chock full
of contradictary theories in terms of old religions. I -Try- not to allow
my personal biases influence me when I compare theories, that doesn't
mean I succeed.
Certainly their descendants have been doing amazing things ever
since. All of us.

> Oppress women, oppress anyone, and you oppress yourself. Why can't people
> get this? We Are Not Alone, We Are ALL ONE. We don't need atonement, we
> need AT ONE Ment!

But, going by the tone of your earlier posting, you said fairly
explicitly that it was a divine duty for women to command themselves, but
that you had intentions of stopping there. That strikes me as a statement
saying that you believe the oppression of males is a good thing. Or did I
misunderstand in context?

> >> If women could never successfully best men in every field of endeavor, men
> >> would joyfully let us compete and lose. It's because we can win, and they
> >> know it, that inspires them to cheat us of what's fair and right.
> >
> >Taken literally, this says that women would beat men at Olympic
> >weight-lifting, but for the fact that the men are cheating. It seems to me
> >that a woman who was really conscious of who and what she was would not
> >need to beat men at weight-lifting. Why should she? Is that what it is
> >all about?
>
> LOL! Here we go with the tired old
> men-are-strong-and-women-should-just-be-glad-to-be-girls! There actually
> have been some women weight-lifters of note, BTW. (Where is my Guinness
> Book of Records...?) NEWS FLASH: men could excel at rhythm gymnastics (but
> why would they want to?). ;) Come to think of it, why would anybody want
> to excel at weight-lifting OR rhythm gymnastics? I mean, what's the point?
> Frisbee! Now there's a sport that belongs at the olympics! They could even
> have human-dog teams...why not? They ride horses, don't they? :) I mean, I
> ask you: synchronized swimming????
>
> Alaska: where men are men, and women win the dogsled race! LOL!
>
> OK, now I'll name something men are unlikely to best women at: giving birth!
> LOL! That, and the price of a token, will get you a ride on the subway! LOL!
>
> "Duh, I'm not very smart, but I can lift heavy things: worship me!" ROTFLMAO!
>
> Laura Goodwin
>
>
> "Who is she who appears like the dawn
> Fair as the moon, bright as the sun,
> Terrifying as an army with banners?"
>
> (Song of Solomon 6:10)
>
He can defend himself on this one if he feels the necessity -
. I -like- the Olympic frisbee competition though - ROTFL.
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:54:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West


>
> I have been hanging around all morning in a black satin nitey, answering my
> email with my dog at my feet. I got up for coffee and a stretch and took it
> into my head to have a snack. I dug around and found some leftover chicken,
> a small piece of cheese, some snack crackers and some red seedless grapes.
> I brewed the coffee (one cup, just for me), pulled the chix meat apart into
> little strips, sliced the cheese into neat little slices, rinsed the grapes,
> and arranged that with the crackers on a lunch plate. I stopped suddenly
> and thought: "What a pretty little lunch!".
>
> This is the first true peace and quiet I've enjoyed for months. With hubby
> at work and the kids at school and my dog at my feet, I'm just enjoying
> being me!
>
> And the persistant pain in my neck is gone! ;) So what do I do? Start
> jumping all over you all, that's what! Some people just don't know how to
> relax (and I am one of those people). ;)
>
> Now, if you will kindly excuse me, I must go crank up "Classical Thunder"
> and practice my handstands.
>
> Laura Goodwin
>
>
> "Who is she who appears like the dawn
> Fair as the moon, bright as the sun,
> Terrifying as an army with banners?"
>
> (Song of Solomon 6:10)
>
Glad you had a nice relaxing day. Everyone needs one of those
once in awhile - . Maybe I'll get mine when I -finally- graduate -

Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:15:43 -0500 (EST)


>
> Jonnan wrote:
>
> > I have yet to find any ethic, intellectual, or physical
> >attribute so supremely prevalent in women and incomprehensible to men that
> >I can justify a belief in the superiority of the female over the male, or
> >basing the structure of a society on that belief.
>
> Stick around... more will be revealed... and it does get better!
>
> > To which the interloper intelligently responds . . . Huh?!? The
> >differences in the worldviews of the genders are exactly that,
> >differences in perspective, and there is less difference between male and
> >female averages than there is between the extremes of either viewpoint.
>
> I wonder how many of these "womens" perspectives are projected by the men
> that they have to work & live "under"? Female Supremes are few but growing
> in numbers daily... as we realize that the universe "won't" actually
> unravel without men in control!

I can only -assume- that those I talk to are honest with me. But
I do give people my opinion (Gee - i know -that's- a shock) and talk to
women and get feedback thereof. Certainly there are things that my
priestess finds very difficult expressing in a way that I can understand
them, and I sometimes have the same problem with her. But I don't think
I'm 'Projecting' a perspective on her. Indeed, if I were, I don't think
she would put up with it - .

> >Moreover the Universe shows no signs of being in any danger of suddenly
> >unraveling all it's secrets to either one. To state one as 'Superior' to
> >the other is rather like saying the blind man that believes an Elephant
> >to be a snake is 'Superior' to the blind man that say's it's actually a
> >tree.
>
> note* they were men looking at the elephant with blind eyes and making
> "knee-jerk" reactions of their "view". They chose not to move or change
> position... in order see more than they did! I noticed that none of them
> were "under" the elephant! I wonder what they would have seen from there!
> LOL!

I've seen enough erroneous conclusions by females not to believe
that they have a better grasp on the universe than we do. Not that men
have it going, I just don't see that anybody can claim to have any gender
specific vision that defines superiority.
Sick moment - you've been warned. If the Blind person -under- the
elephant is unfortunate enough, they will be in the midst of what the
government does best and exclaim 'Oh NO - RUN - IT'S A POLITICIAN!'

> > And as I look at it, it appears that not all the evil in the
> >univers was perpetrated solely by men, nor all the good by women. There
> >were and are female nazis, female KKK members, hatemongers. There are
> >also priestesses, Mother Theresa, Gracie Allen, Diane Duane, Mercedes
> >Lackey, Psyche, Majel Barret Roddenberry, Curie, Madame Curie, ad
> >infinitum. Wouldn't it be better to create a society where -noone- was
> >barred from achieving their potential on the basis of gender than to
> >merely reverse the polarity of the wrongdoing?
>
> I think that "reversing the polarity" is missing the point! If men give up
> their power... what would happen? I feel that men are so frightened by the
> concept of "revenge"... also a possibility but not an effective motivator
> for true Female supremacy... that they feel We would destroy them!!! Not
> much self worth in the gender, if you ask me... but you're not really
> asking...

To the Universe? Nothing. It survived Patriarchy, it'll survive
Matriarchy, and if there is a coup in Australia it'll survive
Wallabeearchy. To -us-? Well, if a Matriarchal society is in place, then
the obvious effect is that opportunities are displaced from being
available to the best person, to being available to the best women. I am
against Patriarchy because I can't -stand- the thought of a daughter of
mine having the potential for greatness and being consigned to mediocrity
because of her gender. I'm against Matriarchy for precisely the same
reason. Self-Centered - Well Sure. Hey - I'm shallow. I've learned to
live with it. I've even learned to enjoy the state - .
Of course if you -do- plan on destroying us none of that applies
-

> Leather
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
> leather@zephyr.net Leather Me Adult Erotic Leather Toys
> \ /
> http://www.leatherme.com P.O. Box 86689 \ O /
> \/Y\/
> http://www.zephyr.net/leather/ Portland, OR )\
> _____/__\______
> toll free: 1-888-233-2055 97286-0689
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<br />>
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 14:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: amfas@netcom.com (Coyote Sings)


Let us (please) set aside religion for now, and talk about metaphysics
or other ways of expressing firs principles.

Patricia wrote:
>
> Maybe this would be easier to understand if we called it the feminine
> principle is superior to the masculine principle.

Agreed!

>
> Make no mistake it was and is
> all about the centrists trying to destroy the tribal culture.

This was more about Romans vs. Tribes than about religion, about
Caesar and Claudius vs. Caractocus and Boadiccea. And yes, the
Romans, along with the idea of uniform law and freeways, gave us
'modern' patriarchy and that marvel of governance, the
organization chart! No doubt: the Roman 'Feds' oppressed the tribes,
as had the Persians and others before them. And, yes, their successors
gave us the Womans' Holocaust, the Burning Times. And still do.

> Women
> held very prominate positions in tribal cultures, whether they owned the
> land or made and delivered the medicine. All centrists religions with a
> white male at there head are both anti-feminine (the female principle)
> in there organization...that is, from the top down....women work in
> circles (the tribe) (the coven). And in their choice of hierarchy...the
> white guys and they discriminate against women and the feminine
> principle....

(Guys in general; not just white, I would say.)

My question is: isn't the Feminine principle central? Doesn't it
stand for origins, the cooking fire, the oven, the hearth, the
hearth, for gravity and attraction, the womb, the core of the circle?
Isn't the tribe, the coven the center?

Isn't the male principle peripheral? Isn't he male out there on
the edge, wandering around, wandering off to another fire, looking
for more mischief, new thrills, discovering, violating?

Ever since Kalika introduced this notion, I have have been puzzling
with this. How does it explain the dead hand of hierarchy? A male
attempt to control the perceived chaos of the Feminine/tribal? Or
what?

(I have had some good experience with the circular/tribal way in
12-step programs, so I know it is fulfilling, feasible and
immediately attainable.)

As with the S&M/sexual connection, I am really curious about this,
and am sincere in asking (and would be grateful for responses,
just as I am for those so far about s&m/submission/sex).

Peace :)
--
coyote sings / man and sky / amfas@netcom.com

Show up. Lighten up. Pay attention. Feel awe. Make it count.
The rest is hidden.





___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:43:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-Id: <199609102143.QAA24084@indy3.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2165

>
> Let us (please) set aside religion for now, and talk about metaphysics
> or other ways of expressing firs principles.
>
> Patricia wrote:
> >
> > Maybe this would be easier to understand if we called it the feminine
> > principle is superior to the masculine principle.
>
> Agreed!
>
> >
> > Make no mistake it was and is
> > all about the centrists trying to destroy the tribal culture.
>
> This was more about Romans vs. Tribes than about religion, about
> Caesar and Claudius vs. Caractocus and Boadiccea. And yes, the
> Romans, along with the idea of uniform law and freeways, gave us
> 'modern' patriarchy and that marvel of governance, the
> organization chart! No doubt: the Roman 'Feds' oppressed the tribes,
> as had the Persians and others before them. And, yes, their successors
> gave us the Womans' Holocaust, the Burning Times. And still do.

To be fair - the -major- instigator of the 2000 years or so of
Patriarchal BS was not the Romans Per Se. It was Aristotle. Along with a
number of other factors of course, Aristotle however was a male
chauvinist. Plain and simple. Unfortunately during the youth of the
church, there were two major philosophic views, Socratic and Aristotlian,
and Aristotles won out. Socrates was a much more egalitarian personage
(You'd have like him people - to the point of 'Once made equal to man,
woman becomes his superior'), but Aristotle was Alexanders tutor in his
youth and both the cultural heritage of Alexander and Aristotles
philosophic longevity conspired to keep his chauvinism in the cultural
for nearly 2500 years.
Just FYI.
Jonnan
> Peace :)
> --
> coyote sings / man and sky / amfas@netcom.com
>
> Show up. Lighten up. Pay attention. Feel awe. Make it count.
> The rest is hidden.
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:49:32 -0700
From: Noble
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Central vs. Peripheral
Message-ID: <32360C9C.6233@tiac.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

since women are so illogical (not) has it never occured to anyone as not
being very logical...that this god created everything in "its" image.
and on this planet at least it is the female of the overwhelming
majority of species that give birth...life...
yet we are asked to believe on the biggest scale..the universe
...a male (the masculine principle) gave birth to it...... it is not
logical, does not flow...the female principle flows...the male principle
bumps and grinds......(a joke sort of)
Patricia


Coyote Sings wrote:

>
> My question is: isn't the Feminine principle central? Doesn't it
> stand for origins, the cooking fire, the oven, the hearth, the
> hearth, for gravity and attraction, the womb, the core of the circle?
> Isn't the tribe, the coven the center?
>
> Isn't the male principle peripheral?

___________________________________________________________________
*********

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:53:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonnan West
To: femsupremacy@renaissoft.com
Subject: Re: Egalitarian vs Femsupremacy
Message-Id: <199609102153.QAA24237@indy3.indy.net>
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2650

>
>
>
> Jonnan (the Barbarian ) wrote:
> >My original question still stands. Why?
> >More precisely, why would one care to copy the worst attributes of the
> oppressor,
> >determined that to protect yourself you must keep another down, unable to
> possibly cause harm.
> >Is Matriarchy, as you see it, merely an inversion between the bullied and the
> bullier?
> >And if so, why would it be an improvement?
>
> You've stated you're an interloper Jonnan and therefore you're bound to work off
> assumptions
> of what this group is about. Most emphatically it is not about inverting
> current power structures.
> It is about discarding the worst attributes of the oppressor.

There seems to be some debate about that -

> Many of the people on this list enjoy BDSM relationships, but when we step
> beyond those realms
> to discuss the potential for a better world, we talk about applying 'feminine'
> characteristics.
> Feminine in inverted commas, because they may not exclusively belong to the
> property women,
> but as I think Dee-Ann was suggesting, are more frequently found there.

But -are- they more frequently found in one or the other. Freedom
of expression is a funny thing, in that the 'ruling' class may be more
suppressed in some ways than the lower class. (Another example is the
wonderful music composed by the suppressed Blacks. If they hadn't felt
they were as low as they could go, would they have been able to create
the Gospel Music, or Jazz? I'm not -sure- that I agree with this, but I
find it has a compelling logic to it as well) I'm not sure that these
things are 'Feminine' or if they merely what got suppressed because it
was perceived as weak, and men could not afford to be weak?

> I'm not sure whether an egalitarian or a fem-supreme model is better and have
> revealed this
> doubt here before. However, I am terrified of where a high-technology + high
> testotorone future
> may lead us and I'd rather err on the side of safety. I don't think it's too
> melo-dramatic to
> suggest that our survival may depend on this.
>
> By the way, what is a bullier? Any relation to a bully?

Got it in one -

> P.S. to micah-l-martin
>
> Please stop accusing other people of misrepresenting your argument whilst
> blantantly
> doing so to theirs. It is very irritating.
>
> Jon
>
Jonnan

___________________________________________________________________
*********

--------------------------------
End of femsupremacy-digest Digest V96 Issue #8
**********************************************

From - Wed Sep 11 16:55:13 1996


Micah L. Martin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Jonnan West wrote:
>
> > To be fair - the -major- instigator of the 2000 years or so of
> > Patriarchal BS was not the Romans Per Se. It was Aristotle. Along with a
> > number of other factors of course, Aristotle however was a male
> > chauvinist.
>
> Aristotle didn't invent any of that, however. It was how he was raised; it
> is what the Greek society of his time was thoroughly permeated with.

He sure as hell did! "form and substance" = 2000 of bullshit !!

Save your breath!

___________________________________________________________________
*********


From - Wed Sep 11 16:55:14 1996


FE>On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Jonnan West wrote:

FE>> To be fair - the -major- instigator of the 2000 years or so of
FE>> Patriarchal BS was not the Romans Per Se. It was Aristotle. Along with a
FE>> number of other factors of course, Aristotle however was a male
FE>> chauvinist.

FE>Aristotle didn't invent any of that, however. It was how he was raised; it
FE>is what the Greek society of his time was thoroughly permeated with.


To be *perfectly* fair, you must remember that
Aristotle's position in Greek Society was that of a
"foreigner", with no status at all. He shared the
same political and economic abyss as women and slaves.
His rhetoric came from the perspective of a slave
dutiful and loving to his Master.
CybErotiComm Online