Feminism.

WordPress shows me that somebody visited one of my older posts, which worries me. So…

A definition of Feminism; the advancement of women. To me, it is part of the Battle of the Sexes. The good it does, pivots on the value of Equality. I hope this perspective is useful in understanding ‘Meninsists’ or persuading the perverse sub-Reddit, “The Red Pill”.

Historically, there has been a lot of suffering endured by women. This does not validate an exclusive advancement for them. For instance, the Kensington System was definitely child abuse yet not a damn thing should be done to advance Queen Elizabeth. (If it was a contest of monarchs, she wins, the Saudi king still kills people for being witches, just saying I would know who to spit on.) An abusive system should be reformed, that specific generation given special allowance, once they have shuffled off this mortal coil different rules apply no more.

The good Feminism has done, is good because of the value of Equality. Now let us note that the French Revolution, a critical point in the development of modern society, called for, “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”. Those three words are still the motto of France & Haiti. Fraternity being the brotherhood of man, inherent sexism will always linger. But I digress, the good Feminism has done pivots on the value of Equality.

Women can vote as well as men.
Rape is a crime, no matter if it occurs to a drunken skank or between marriage partners or someone doped with Viagra.

The Gender Pay Gap is more complex than voting or sex crimes. Allow me to note in the spirit of Equality,  International Pay Gaps rank higher in loose hierarchy of inequality. Women are much less likely to work in professions with injury & death. Danger Pay accounts for some of the imbalance. Women are much more likely to perform unpaid domestic labour; stress relief, laundry, the miscellaneous duties of life. Everyday an essay or an article is written on this subject matter.

However what has at times frustrated me, angered me, is the exclusive focus on national women’s problems. Hence my mention of the International Pay Gap. When I see a police station with a poster, “Zero Tolerance for Violence Against Women” I wonder how many arrests police could make if they held that as a strict value for men as well. Posters should be taken with, speaking metaphorically, a grain of salt.
Nevertheless, when the factoid “2 women a week are murdered in domestic violence.” circulates, I become angry. What good does it do to know this? If it does good, why isn’t the complementary factiod, “3 men a week are murdered” circulating?
Domestic Violence specifically, & Women’s Rights more broadly, became a political football. Politicians have a go at a negative attack on it and never say a damn thing about a loose hierarchy of domestic social problems (suicide is at the top and kills 3:1 men : women), never argue if zero violence is possible and so on so forth.

This brings me to another attitude which may be useful in understanding MRA’s. A lot of people who have not done research would agree to these points;
– crimes used to be reported in terms of the villain (Blacks Attack Couple!),
– crimes are now reported in terms of the victim (Blacks Attacked 25% More!).
Wouldn’t many people agree that the hierarchy of Victimhood is an inversion of a hierarchy of Criminality?
Is there a 3rd way?
My nation has between 5-7 suicides a day (most of a young & healthy men not Euthanasia), yet the suicide of a refugee supersedes in newspaper columns. A sense of persecution is seeded when the Stanford Rapist is globally infamous, & contrasted with about 2 years earlier a black US New Yorker commits a rape then is set free immediately.

To thoroughly persuade the sub-category of MRA’s who are morons, I recommend first acknowledging the thirst for revenge. Such a thirst is always within us, and is responsible for constant demands to be harsh on crime. It is an ploy which comes from the left-field when Satyagraha pacifism & Christian forgiveness looms ascendant.
(My own philosophy is that there is a line in the sand, which if crossed brings the death penalty. 2+ cold-blooded murders, active paedophilia, torture. If the criminal has not crossed such a line, then redemption through reformation of personality is the primary objective of the law. Please, if you believe the victim has precedence over either or both, make a comment. Should a victim be able to pardon the villain? Must the victim approve before the death penalty is applied?)

Feminism has yet to satisfy my curiosity about the potentiality of innate psychological differences between the sexes.

The international state of affairs surpasses domestic affairs. There is crime against women here in Australia, but so far it has happened historically or to people I don’t know & haven’t met. In the former case I try to be good, yet my actions have been limited to listening not lecturing.
It still shocks me that there are bad men & bad women.
In the case of crime against women I don’t know & haven’t met, I fail to see how their passport increases their importance. Surely the Islam of Saudi Arabia (Sunni), of Iran (Shia), is an easy & CORRECT target. Women inherit less than men, on Quranic instruction. Women are dogmatically assumed to lie twice as much men, on the authority of the Koran. Arabic countries make rape being a bigger crime for the victim than the villain, which is contemptible. Turkey may slide into the cesspool if Mr. Erdoğan panders to the passions of Faith.

This has grown into a ramble, which I immensely prefer to a rant, although the latter is more invigorating…

Advertisements

Newes from Scotland – declaring the damnable life and death of Doctor Fian, a notable sorcerer.

Freely available online, which is to be respected. It is what you would expect after reading the Wikipedia page & no better or worse, and hence, 3-stars.

A gruesome & grotty dose of horrible history. I have no doubt that a great many of the contemporaries of this debacle were naive. Naive enough to believe the women and sorcerer would only confess if it was true and had no other reason for the confession except it was The Truth.

Let us now dive into some gruesome & grotty details. Who knows what pelliwinkes are? Would you be surprised to learn about moonlit orgies? What if I told you that devotion to the Devil requires you to physically kiss his butt-cheeks? Or that the King, in a fit of ignorance, demanded to hear the music of the Devil played on a Jew Harp? & for the pedants, when did the letter ‘v’ replace the letter ‘u’? ‘s’ & ‘f’ stopped being interchangeable?

Read on…

Jabber-Jibber

Written to an online friend.

Good luck with your endeavour to build your own vision.

I can hold onto that stick but there is not so much for me to get written today.
Regrettably this means I now lean towards pedagoguery. I have been writing this for an hour, maybe more, and before you begin down the rabbit hole of my writing and get lost in the warren of words, I ask if you agree with this statement.
The average rating (on Goodreads.com) should be 3-stars but is in fact higher.

Here’s a pet theory of mine I’ve been polishing for a length of time. If you can harness it in an algorithm or if it somehow gets you acclaim, good. I am seriously serious about it, and reckon more circulation should be good. Never yet met anyone in a position to demonstrate it as I believe it exists nor demonstrate the pattern I perceive fits into some already existing psychology theory. Maybe you will meet such a person at university. Perhaps it is just a mental Rube Goldberg machine. If the latter, I hope it entertains you.

The Goodreads thing is about a concept called by Wikipedia ‘Illusory Superiority‘. However, I like my way more & tell you my theory.

In Brief:
1. Belief alone changes reality (slightly).
2. Language requires belief to be meaningful.
3. Pleasure, like language, is learnt.
4. Avoidance of displeasure leads to a convergence of negative language (or other acts of belief).
5. Preference for pleasure leads to a divergence of positive language (or other acts of belief).

Therefor, the average rating on Goodreads will be above 3-stars. Comments with ratings beneath average will receive more votes than is reasonable to expect from the average rating of the book.
To dissuade me of this theory, I want you to argue for a different cause for negative comments reaching the “winner’s podium”, the top 3 comments. Alternatively you could sneer, leer and dismiss my statistical analysis as no more useful than counting sheep in my dreams and expecting to wake up to a bigger flock.

 

The Placebo Effect shows a power of belief. Ever so slight a mental attitude produces ever so minor an alteration to our physical world. A patient-held belief that red (or yellow or green or blue) is the best colour for medicine, improves the effectiveness of medicine coloured to match belief. The first Google article returned from, ‘believe round white pills are healthier and they are more effective placebo‘ by Google Australia, briefly outlines the effect of colour on tranquiliser-drugs. (I have not heard a satisfactory definition of drugs in my entire life.)

I iterate this, you may not share it.
Language is inherently meaningless. Did language emerge when an early hominid saw a tree and say ‘tree’ or ‘arbor’ or ‘pfab-gooey’? I say no! The meaning is created by the action of the human mind and has been in a state of constant flux since the original trigger. Would human belief be an apt description of this mental action? I say yes!

Belief triggered by any linguistic effort produces ever so slight a change in the real existence of the person doing the believing / speaking. To feel good, I may mutter to myself “F.I.G.J.A.M.” (acronym: Fuck I’m Good Just Ask Me) and not even bother imagining an answer to the question. This will produce a real change in my body, I feel a tingle down my legs right now and I’m sure there is a neuro-chemical responsible (spell-check insists I meant to write ‘petrochemical’, lol talk about the imperialism of capitalism penetrating the profane, lol).

Recap: belief alone can make (small) change, language requires belief, therefor language alone can make the same (small) change.

Combine this attitude, belief with something said by Mr. Zizek (not a quote), “All pleasures are learnt. Even sex I claim.”
Goodreads users want more pleasure. So they make an effort to say their reading is better than, statistically speaking, it should be. They come online the website and make ever so slight an effort of belief. Maybe, “This book deserves 4-stars.” & click the 4th star or they write a review. This genuinely improves their reading experience, but only slightly.

Not all the reading done is happy, fun and fulfilling. Sometimes it is boring, tedious or not-good. Assuming a balance is expected by the Goodreads users, or is an automatic / natural pattern, there is an emotional backlash expected.

To produce this balance and satisfy some demand for equilibrium Goodreads users vote for negative reviews. But the negativity they vote for never corrects the balance and brings the average rating down to 3-stars.

Perhaps this is the Objet Petite a of Lacanian theory. Perhaps not. If you would send me a few words about your perception of Objet Petite a I would be grateful.

So the gist of it so far,
Belief makes change. Language requires belief. Pleasure is learnt. Avoidance of displeasure leads to a convergence of negative. Preference for pleasure leads to a divergence of positive.
I assume Mr. Zizek means this pattern in aggregate when he says ‘the economy of pleasure’.

I, (without ability to relate my predictions to a theory any more clearly than the above) I predict that the Goodreads above-average rating will occur in tandem with a dominant negative review in the top 3 comments. I expect to find the average rating of the top 3 comments to be less than the total average rating.

To dissuade me of this theory, I want you to argue for a different cause for negative comments reaching the “winner’s podium”, the top 3 comments. Alternatively you could sneer, leer and dismiss my statistical analysis as no more useful than counting sheep in my dreams and expecting to wake up to a bigger flock.

I now venture into the virtual world to test my theory. I select 3 from the recommendations list and three from the list of top rated books.

BOOKS SELECTED FROM RECOMMENDATIONS.
Bridge of Birds (The Chronicles of Master Li and Number Ten Ox #1)
Average rating 4.3-stars.
Averaged rating of the top 3 comments, 4-stars.
SUPPORT FOR MY THEORY.

The Night Club: Part One (Noční klub #1)
Average rating 4.49-stars.
Averaged rating of the top 3 comments, 4.6-stars.
MY THEORY IS DENIED.

Jules Verne Seven Novels
Average rating 4.33-stars.
Averaged rating of the top 3 comments, 4.6-stars.
MY THEORY IS DENIED.

BOOKS SELECTED FROM LIST OF TOP RATED.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Harry Potter #7)
Average rating, 4.61-stars.
Averaged rating of top 3 comments, 3.6-stars.
SUPPORT FOR MY THEORY.

A Storm of Swords (A Song of Ice and Fire #3)
Average rating, 4.54-stars.
Averaged rating of top 3 comments, 5-stars.
MY THEORY IS DENIED.

A Court of Mist and Fury (A Court of Thorns and Roses #2)
Average rating, 4.72-stars.
Averaged rating of top 3 comments, 4-stars.
SUPPORT FOR MY THEORY.

2312

Goodreads review.

A grand space opera. The author writes for us, the readers, flights of emotion inspired directly from music, waxes lyrical about space, sex, death. AI ‘personhood’ is briefly skirted, a shadow looms large upon interplanetary civilisation. As for consistency with science, this work of fiction holds up alright, as much as I’m any judge. Full of ‘high culture’ this book is most rewarding to anyone peculiar enough to have memorised planetary geography or the relevant famous figures. Prepare for ‘SJW’ agitation!

How to build an asteroid habitat, called a terrarium here, is detailed. This eases the reader towards the sweet, fantastic indulgence of interplanetary travel. Pitfalls are avoided, to my frustration, the experience of gravity closest to the sunline is not written. Terraforming technologies are strung together in the brief chapters which jerk away from linear narrative. In regards to terrarium, this pre-emptively constructs the next destination and a frequent travel method. Terraform technology is advanced and had to be so because humans buggered up the climate in “The Dithering”. A critique of modern times. Regrettably the author does not use this opportunity to highlight the unique benefits of a benevolent dictator [climate is a global system, a singular executive is my preferred option for action], which offers clear benefits in 2312 due to additional supports absent to any contemporary wannabe.

Social affairs were hit-&-miss to the sweet spot. Economics are discussed in broad strokes. Observations of the narrative try to find a balance between modern criticisms and absent fantasy. There is a lack of personal devotion to a particular economic system, a ‘future-Objectivism’ would fit snugly into place. Race, is not a sticking point for any of the characters, such sticklers are probably unlikely to go on an adventure. However, there were frustrations. Surely an Indian citizen of earth; from an impoverished, violent, rapey, xenophobic community, would feel some degree of culture-shock on being transplanted, almost overnight without any anticipation whatsoever, to Chinese Venus? Not really no, not in 2312!
Describing a minor character as of indeterminate race from the view of a major character, is inconsistent to the fantasy. Either the main character cares about race, or does not. If the latter, and not a single main character has the slightest bias in this regard, then why would it be remarked upon in their inner dialogue? If it did matter, the main characters have discreet access to AI-assisted, Future Internet. Further, if it was instead a flight of fancy, a challenge to the personal, unassisted mind, than dark skin winnows a few of the potential races (i.e. Korean, Gaelic) from the pools of possibility.

Gender, is a similar kettle of fish. Personally, the writing was at times repulsive. There is an attempt to show repulsion of others sexuality as a human attribute (hermaphrodites / androgynous circle orgies are not repulsive, but some small people having sex with one big person is). The particulars are brief and bad. However, sex doesn’t strangle the space fantasy, nor is it a distracting spectacle to alleviate narrative inadequacies. The fit jarred me. The temporary failure of internal logic is powerfully frustrating to me. Again if physical gender is remarkable, and if someone is definitely not-male and not-female, it is not indeterminate gender, particularly not if the observer gave a damn to remark upon it. It indicates two genders as definitely absent.
A bit of the internal backstory though, does clear it up slightly. We, the reader, are exposed to a historical summation of longevity. In the same way that powerful social taboos about conception technology were overcome, i.e. abortion, devout Abrahammic religions & the general populace deviating from those moral codes, so to is our contemporary gender template overwhelmed by the what is offered by embracing, by act of intentional & specific creation, both crotches…

Finally, the AI. This is written with a sprinkling of quantum terminology; coupling, decoherence, potential states and more. Qube AI is not explicitly interrogated, implicit interrogation takes place, about the character of Jean Genette. I, for one, would truly like to read the future version of the Turing Test. It is a shame it was not explicit, perhaps it cannot be done adequately. At times Qubes are narrative tools used as literal Deus Ex Machina, the difficulty of imagining a story involving powerful AI without resolving the tension in a few verbal queries & commands must be recognised

Effects of Collective Nouns.

My thesis is that the use of collective nouns, such as men, women, aboriginal, migrant, refugee, (the more specific the more influential) in mass media affects identity and dynamics about the given identity. As contrast, individuals in the media will not produce the same effects. This, if true, has a critical role to play in feelings of anonymity, a modern health issue caused by massive populations. As suicide becomes an increasingly severe problem in the developed world, and the recognising the role of anonymity in suicide, this may produce changes which can mitigate this horror (which is by no means isolated to developed nations).

This is not a thorough sociological, statistical investigation to validate my opinion. It is my opinion and it just makes sense to me. So I shall lay out my case in hopes of persuading you, the reader. I make my case with the intent to demonstrate some evidence and reasoning that lack of men as a collective noun in Australian mass media, is an actionable factor in the horrible male suicide statistics. Often issues disproportionately affecting men (such as being overworked) are not discussed as such, and are instead reported or discussed as Australian problems. This re-labelling of men’s problems as Australian problems diverts public discourse, which is a form of community care & attention and an aspect of a better tomorrow.

Inner stories supply people with a framework to manage living, and individual narratives are are created from national, or other community, materials.
[How many Asiatic people have mentioned their lack of mathematical skills to me? Some, way more than any other ethincity, so this is personal evidence of individuals feeling an urge to relate themselves to the stereotype.]
Modern, larger-than-life (which I believe are effective at reducing suicide) narratives are found in many communities but major sources are simple to identify, such as cinema, literature and mass media. I reckon presence of a specific collective noun in the mass media would increase subjective relation to the identity born from the noun and also boost social effects (such as attending specific cultural events) of that collective. Lack of collective nouns will increase feelings of anonymity and associated problems, extending beyond suicide / mental health to things such as diminished political participation.

Individual men are more common figures in the mass media than individual women. However, I believe that there will be less subjective identification with a public figure as opposed to a collective category. Beneficial effects of collective nouns will either exist in significantly reduced quality & quantity or will not at all be caused by media conversation about individuals.

Feminism, which has had many significant successes and still has many significant objectives, has grown conversation about women’s problems to a towering juggernaut. Feminism casts a shadow which I believe to be a factor in the existence of problematic mental health in men. This effect would be restricted to men (and not extend to say, LGBT), as the binary male / female would indicate the domain in which the identity is to be relatively judged. To develop this concept, a relative judgement will contrast what is relevant, men / women collective noun usage being the obvious measuring posts. Scrolling down a news group’s Facebook page in search of collective nouns (& not individuals) shows more media focus on, & therefore national community identity / narrative material for, women.

A simple demonstration is to read an article focused on a community, identify the collective noun, such as men, and replace that term with a broader collective noun, such as Spaniards. Such a shift reduces informative ability of the article, and so reduces political effects of the community & / article (less information, leads less informed decisions, leads less effective action, leads less action). Further it reduces immediate identification with the facets of the article in question. So to say it differently, individual men in media are weaker at causing the male community to relate to the discourse and is one of the array of factors which inhibit drawing their own inner narrative from the readily accessible mass media.

A Minister for Men.

This is specific to Australia.

There is a Minister for Women. She is not chosen democratically, the duty is loosely described as “to ensure that women’s issues and gender equality are taken into consideration in policy and program development and implementation”. The Minister for Women has been a consistent role since 1983. I do not believe the role should be temporary, and should be permanent for the next 50 or 100 years, perhaps further. Rather this is an attempt to persuade you the reader, that the obvious complementary role, that of a Minister for Men, is a meaningful suggestion to develop our society.

If the role of Minister is justified as a better method to act on problems which disproportionately affect women (as opposed to a focus from relevant ministers i.e. domestic violence being adequately addressed by the Minister of Police), then it is or will become worthy to extend a similar role to address disproportionately male problems. There are problems (i.e. overtime-overworked, suicide, victims of most non-sexual violent crime, inconsistent university entry & graduation, shorter life expectancy, employment-divorce) which disproportionately affect men.

Male hegemony dominated most historic Australian societies, but it is greatly reduced in Australia after the turn of the millennium. Issues of focus for feminism remain, for example there is not an approximate balance of genders in parliament. To cut to the chase, the stereotypical straight, white male who dominates peak positions in media, business, society and politics is under no obligation to represent men. Feminism, as virtue, or its counterpart misogyny, as vice, is a tool of female politicians, and masculinity, or misandry (this issue was sometimes in jest, yet anecdotally, a university sociologist told me sincerely, speedos delivered a sexist advantage to his government), do not follow the same dynamic. Mens rights are often treated as an attempt to restore society to a Victorian era status quo, and simply blaming masculinity is acceptable to mainstream media.
I must personally & briefly reject the definition of feminism as someone who holds gender equality as a community value, this is an underpinning value but this definition does not even mention the focus on womens rights & issues which is essential to feminism.

The Australian of the Year made an appearance on Q&A earlier this year. David Morrison, as a manifestation of the above mentioned stereotype of the elite, straight, white male, spoke of domestic violence as Australias no. 1 social problem. It was pertinent to the question, but it was false, I’m certain by ignorance and not intent. I understand the role of AotY is under no obligation to develop & maintain a deep awareness of Australian society. Mr. Morrison’s comments follow a politically correct hierarchy of victimhood. To briefly demonstrate the falseness of a claim that domestic violence is the number one social issue (approximate numbers, links here or elsewhere in article);
– domestic violence kills slightly more than once a week mostly women,
– suicide kills roughly 38 per week an approximate gender ratio of 3 men : 1 woman,
– murder kills about 5 per week an approximate gender ratio of 3 men : 2 women,
– drug abuse kills 14 per week an approximate gender ratio of 9 men : 5 women*.
In raw terms of lives lost, domestic violence does not compare to other issues. Breaking down the discussion on murder into specific terms is useful in discussion and in pursuing a better tomorrow. Nevertheless, the male hegemony does not pursue the suffering of men, particularly premature death, a Minister for Men can fulfill that duty.
To briefly focus on the above mentioned politically correct hierarchy of victimhood. This is an extension of political correctness beyond it’s most practical realm. This practical realm is the need for a certain politeness for those who have a massive audience. Presidential nominees as well as Batman films can, inadvertently, trigger the mad &/ sad to do bad things and  I am suspicious of more insidious effects. Political correctness can transgress this practical boundary, for example the suffering of Justine Sacco for using sarcasm on the internet.

To return to the title, a Minister for Men could work on solving or reducing the problems which disproportionately affect men. Our community continues to offer less support for men, than for women. Examples abound, Royal Women & Children’s Hospitals are a signal of care which has no equal for men, of  course hospitals do not forcibly expel men seeking medical assistance. News articles about domestic violence always come with a phone number to call for immediate human contact, a form of social support. This support is not found in most articles with male victims.

To be positive, modern lifestyles are mostly better than historic lifestyles. This post is intended to be critical of some effects of feminism and political correctness, however it hopefully is not destructive to worthy objectives and is constructive towards a better tomorrow. If it has been persuasive, please sign the petition and join me in calling for a Minister for Men.
Let me leave you with a question, what should be required from a could-be father in relation to an abortion?

Institutional Discrimination.

Why should minority supporting quotas and incentives be accepted? If a job has two objectively equal applicants, why should subjective value be over-ridden by a quotas? Or objective value tilted by incentive?
A lot of discrimination occurs without organisation. A passive form of discrimination, of preferential treatment of those most comfortable to an authority figure, becomes a serious issue as it emerges from a community of millions.

Kim Davis, as an individual, refused to do the paperwork for a homosexual marriage, on religious grounds (an inconsistent personal standard, due to her divorces). This is an example of the category of discrimination which occurs without collusion. She did not act as a result of scheming between the USA government and Apostolic Christians.

Studies which found resumés with popular American-African* names require more applications to achieve the same number of respones, as those with popular generic American names. This is not due to the Aryan Brotherhood infiltrating business networks to influence hiring trends but instead evidence of an ideology without clear organisation & intent. A media which circulates more stories of American-African crime is an organised distribution which feeds the dynamic of discrimination, it is not done with the intent to disadvantage but to scandalise and sell.
*I hold that the first nationality is the place of residence and the second a heritage, so here an American with African heritage.

If TV news station has a segment for flattery of an individual, should an individual from the class which receives the most negativity elsewhere in the news, be chosen?

If two job applicants are objectively equal, in terms of education, experience etc., is it natural that subjective value (i.e. interviewer & interviewee share a hobby) becomes decisive?
Of course it is, and this aspect of humanity would see institutional dominance of the rich, white man maintained, but without intentional, organised ill-will. Mandatory quotas, alongside tax breaks & other incentives, act against this passive discrimination. However it means that the state enacting them is discriminating against the rich, white male, by legally de-valuing them or over-valuing the non-rich, non-white, non-male. Quotas and incentives then, become a systemic and intentional discrimination against the dominant class. What a strange inversion of the original state of affairs.

Much talk of discrimination frames the problem as though there were a conspiratorial group creating it, to the detriment of the minorities. Historically this has been true, and remains true of myriad situations. Also, that this is a realistic foundation subsumed into conspiracies of liberal perversion of government and public community promoted by right wing communities. Yet despite disorganised, unintentional discrimination against minorities, it should be seen that Western cultures which have systemic, intentional discrimination in favour of minorities are developing beyond a historic limit of equality.

Male Supremacy. x3

Immediately written out from watching Cornell West.

Male Supremacy.
Partially produced by passive consistency with the past. For example, speakers of gendered languages may always associate two disparate entities due to the arbitrarily assigned gender pronoun. So this consistency may lay apart from months of choices, only to reveal itself before or after a choice. To continue the example, the speaker of a gendered language makes jokes about women having the same qualities as the feminine pronoun word. Having chosen immoral action, subsequent cognitive dissonance, in a word, doubt, will arise about the conflict between the ideal self and reality. Heed it if it ever actually happens like this, although the act would already be receding into the past, consideration and conversation will develop and maintain the ideal moral image.

Male Supremacy.
Also a piece of sexuality. Individuals may become, in a word, ‘invigorated’, by playing upon the concept. For some, the clearer and more spoken the conceptual paradigm becomes, ‘invigoration’ may zero. No one mentions the Emperors New Clothes. However, if it is agreement between individuals, then I refuse it can zero ‘invigoration’. Deliberation, upon when it is not in agreement between people, reveals situations when spoken intents could reveal future crime.

Male Supremacy.
A dynamic of groups, and not only of male groups. Conversations and social occasions will demonstrate an impact. Gender consistency is a fundamental way to phrase this, an example is most people are more comfortable meeting strangers of their own gender. Due to history infinitesimal passage away, our present and immediate future show continuation of male supremacy. It could be expressed by discussion of male body language, of gender equality or something else. However the game must begin somewhere, let me leave you with this, “Men are blessed.”.

*Do visit that site, it’s art*