09.17.09

On female politicians and effectiveness

Posted in Female superiority, Female supremacy, Hypocrisy, irrational thought, Political rant at 11:55 am by angela

Now I wouldn’t have guessed this from looking at my own Congressmen, but probably I’m prejudiced against my state’s Senators, who are Republicans and seem to spend all their time sucking up to lobbyists while pretending to be moderates, while the Democrats actually seem to work for me no matter what gender they be.

…shows that they are more effective than male politicians. They are better leaders because they get more of the stuff they’re supposed to get done done.

The study corrected for gender-seniority, since women politicians often have shorter careers in politics, and minority status. But dang, they were just more effective at serving their constituents.

How could that be?

Well maybe, just maybe they were spending their time doing the jobs they were elected to do instead of letting power go to their heads and spending their time in gamesmanship and the quest for ever-increasing personal wealth. Maybe they were feeling responsible to their constituents instead of lobbyists.

Eh, who knows? But keep an eye on that.

Link

But very interestingly, a diary in Daily Kos, that tried to show that it was sexist to even run such a study. The original writer has trouble with the scientific method, not understanding what a hypothesis is and how one might be tested. He thinks that studies are set up not to test, but to prove a point or advance an agenda.

It’s hard to imagine what kind of committee would be appropriate for pre-screening research projects to decide which ones might come up with inappropriate new knowledge, so we can avoid such research in the first place.

Now he wouldn’t be upset if the study had found that males made better pols than females.

And his claim that the only logical conclusion would be legally-enforced female supremacy – laws preventing males from running for office – is beyond absurd.

Just a troll.

The guy’s a troll, but enjoy.

02.03.07

For those of you who think you want to be slaves…

Posted in Female superiority, Female supremacy, Slaves and subs at 8:47 am by angela

If you’ve read everything I ever wrote (haha) you probably realize that I have very specific ideas about what a slave or submissive is and is not, and that most of the males I have chatted with only meet the guidelines in their dreams. They fail to understand that being a male submissive or slave to a dominant woman is not about some hot chick in a pvc corset spending all of her time fulfilling their pornographic fantisies. If that’s what they want, they need to hire a pro and pay her for her time.

I can hear some of you whimpering, NOoo…“I need the connection, it must be a girlfriend, a wife…” Who does all the things to you that you have on your list, right? You just haven’t found the right girl who wants to do all those things and exactly those things and doesn’t expect anything in return from you but the opportunity to fulfil your fantasies…

Get real. If you’re for real, you should be able to read the blog entry below and identify with it. If you can’t, you’re not a slave or a submissive. Mind you, that’s okay. Maybe you’re just some kind of bottom. Maybe you just like “femdom” porn, like Men in Pain, eh?

It’s all right to be what you are. True servitude is not for everybody. Just recognize the difference between fantasy and reality. It will definitely ease your search for happiness if you’re searching for something that can be found.

What is slavery?Dianna Vesta’s blog

12.18.06

A comment from the gallery: female supremacy

Posted in Female superiority, Female supremacy, Utopia at 8:24 pm by angela

You will find my original entry to which Publus responded here.

Publus wrote:

“Principal Quattrano,

I’ve read your critique of the corrupt politicians in Washington, and although I agree that our country is currently being run by a bunch of dishonest dunces (though perhaps less so since the last election), there is an even more evil conspiracy that I find substantially more alarming than the one that has Duhbya as its public face. I refer, Principal, to the conspiracy for which you appear to be one of the more articulate spokespeople.

One only needs to look at national trends to see what’s really going on. Thirty years ago, when men were the undisputed heads of the household, “female domination” was an almost unheard of fetish. It has grown in popularity over the years, and now “professional dominatrixes” can be found in every major city — commanding fees of hundreds or thousands of dollars per session. Meanwhile, females are attaining more and more power in the home, in the workplace, and in government. This last election, we saw the high office of Speaker of the House being assumed by a woman, and in the next election a woman could easily become President. It is not hard to see where this is all headed:

A FemDom revolution.

Slowly but surely, every major position of power in America will come to be occupied by a woman, and the view that men are inept in such roles will become more and more well accepted. Soon, positions of authority generally will be reserved for women alone. Police officers, managers, judges, newspaper editors, schoolteachers, and anyone else whose job involves any kind of authority will invariably be women. Men will be relegated to those tasks that involve heavy physical labor or to domestic or clerical tasks.

Even in the family, it will eventually come to be understood that the husband lives under the care and guardianship of his wife, who makes all of the major (and most of the minor) decisions for the family. The female-dominated state legislatures will put laws into effect to enforce this arraignment: A man will not be able to travel, access his bank account, drink alcoholic beverages, or do any number of other things without his wife’s written permission. If he is absent from his home from too long, a mere phone call will cause the police to locate him and return him to the custody of his wife. Corporal punishment will come to be an acceptable manner of resolving marital disputes.

And, of course, since the woman will be regarded as the head of the household, boys will be taught from an early age that they are inferior to girls and that they exist only to serve them. That message will be reinforced in schools, run by the likes of Principal Quattrano herself. As the saying goes, “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.”

It’s happening all around us, so subtly that we can barely detect it. The men of America must take cover, for the revolution is coming!”

Actually, I don’t have the strong feeling that it’s going to continue to progress until female supremacy becomes the dominant paradigm. I was in a yahoo group a while back that started to move in that direction – the group owner was convinced that all males are vastly inferior to all females, thus making it legitimate (in her mind, anyway) to legalize discrimination in education, job opportunity, etc, against males. As far as she was concerned, it was not her problem if an being kept uneducated kept men from being able to earn a living – it was their problem, and they deserved it to make up for many generations of previous discrimination against females. If men were unemployable and unable to support themselves, she figured that women would just have to support them. Now wait a minute…?!? How does women supporting men so they don’t have to work mean that women are dominant?

Truly I am being kind toward her. In fact, she just hated men, and the more she typed, the angrier and more bitter and vitriolic she became.

Besides, the differences between individuals are often greater than any differences between averages of groups. Everybody in our society needs the best education and training they can get in order to make everybody self-supporting taxpaying citizens.

In this group they foresaw that we had turned the corner, momentum was building, and this soon would occur. Thankfully (in my opinion) they based their determination of how the “movement” was snowballing on the number of cross-posts they had on yahoo groups. Whew! Still safe here.

And one last note from Publus:

“I’m pretty sure it’s spelled with a ‘w’”.

In response to my question, “Can you spell ‘lame duck’?

06.04.06

Female Superiority and bullshit

Posted in Female superiority, Female supremacy at 12:00 am by angela

Not sure what the problem is with this. I put a script on my server and found that this misspelled url keeps coming up repeatedly. So here’s the correct link where you can find the post you are looking for.