From: holzman@fnalo.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Women and Men Witches
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:04:19 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Nov10.233819.44616@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 
kumagic@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Stephen R. Figgins) writes:

[lots deleted]

Several notes and question:

1) Who sired the male?  I submit that you do not get a male without there being
a male to provide a y-chromosome.

2) From whence comes this "first female"?

3) How does pre-existence imply supremacy?

> Maybe I have been too unclear as to my female supremacy thing.  I see
> the male as being contained within the female.  I see myself as being
> female at my very essence.  What should have been two x chromosomes
> mutated, broken to become x and y.  

I find that there is another way to look at it: The male contains both maleness
(Y-chromosome) and femaleness (X-Chromosome).  If I were one who thought of
gender supremacy as anything other than sexist rubbish, I might make an
argument that this meant that the male were the more complete.

> I think it is very importatn that I have an X chromosome.  If the male
> were truly some separate animal, I suppose he would have two y's, 

How do you figure that?

> but the male is really a part of the race of woman.  

Last time I checked, men and women were part of the single race of humans, not
seperate animals at all.

> [Man is] An errant child of
> the mother who has taken too much power for his kind, and tried to
> define himself as separate, and her as inferior.  

If women are so superior, how were men able to do this?

> I see the whole adam
> and eve thing as a lie to cover up the truth, in the beginning, there
> was woman, we are her children.

Who fathered us, then?  Parthodenesis can only produce a female.  To get a man,
you must have a man to begin with.

> So just as we are all from the body of the goddess, we are also all
> born from the body of a woman, and are a part of her.  

Show me the human who is not from the body of a man as well, who does not have
their father's genetic information in every last cell of their body.

> Man is a
> carrier of her chromosomes, an opportunity for greater variety.  All
> is to me essentially female.  I am a female supremicist. 

And the Christian Church once argued that women were simply the ground in which
men planted their seed, not a part of the reproductive process at all.  I fail
to see how changing who's role in procreation gets dismissed makes things
better.

> Men are so messed up, in my opinion, partially because they have
> divided themselves from women, set themselves apart, and made up
> different rules for men and women.   They have enforced them with
> strength, and bullying, and peer pressure, and have created a world of
> power-over, of value heirarchies. 

Once again, if the female is supreme, how could this have happened?

> I am too tired to proof this.  I hope it makes sense.  I suppose we
> can discuss it more later.

I await more.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.