Please give specific examples of "female supremacy"?

Question

I hear (often in this forum) that feminists want "supremacy". I'd just like to know EXACTLY what is meant by that? How are feminists trying to gain supremacy? By what means? For what purpose? What is the evidence of this?

Itisfutile: why would they need to have a law where there has to be 40% men if there already is far more than 40% already? I'm not saying I agree with the law, but truthfully, why would they even make such a law unless women were grossly under-represented in the first place?

O.k. Itisfutile: if women did comprise 40% of that workforce, how would that be superior? Men would still comprise 60%. As it is now, women aren't even 40%....so either way, men still come out on top.

Nelson: I knew you couldn't do it.

And I don't hate men, but I know who you are, and I do despise YOU. I'm tired of your insults.

Guns Fan: all I've ever heard you say is hateful, untrue, illogical things about feminists.

So far, none of you have given me anything that amounts to an intended "supremacy movement." How can you even say that, while completely disregarding everything that women have historically had to struggle against in order to even get close to equality? You seriously think that now YOU are the oppressed ones? I realize there are issues that men have, and I am not invalidating them. They do need attention. But they are not a result of a "female supremacy movement." They are the result of hundreds of years of discrimination and prejudice against women and the struggle to correct those issues. Of course there will be mistakes made along the way. This is not intentional. It is not uncorrectable. It is not insurmountable. It is not because women are trying to "gain supremacy." You continually compare feminists to nazis. I cannot comprehend how you could even think it.

Itisfutile: yes, I'm getting your drift. But how do you know that? How do you know that law will last any longer than is necessary to achieve a more-or-less even ratio? Is it a good law? I didn't say it was. Most of you already know my stance on quotas. They can create conditions of reverse discrimination. All I'm saying is this: the intent behind the law is not to create conditions of supremacy, it is to eliminate them. Whether it actually achieves this or not is yet to be seen. (And yes, I have my doubts as to it's effectiveness.) But the idea behind it is not to give women supremacy, it is to help them gain equality. If women already had equality, there would be no purpose for the law, would there? If you have a better solution, I'd like to hear it, and so would the rest of the world, probably.

Antimisanry: A "man tax"? That IS ridiculous. If there are actually people trying to do this (they insult feminism by associating themselves with it), I seriously doubt that ANYONE in their right minds are going to listen to that or take it seriously. You really don't have to fear something like that ever coming to pass. And the women who would propose such a thing are not feminists, and they certainly don't represent the view of the masses.

Antimisanry: I TRIED to watch that link, but could really only handle it for about two minutes. What is the purpose of this? This elderly woman talks about the importance of prayer "and just doing it" while her boobs are falling out of her shirt. Please. What does this have to do with what we're discussing here?

Patois, nicely put.

Rovale: lol!

Gennatri: wow...that's heavy.

Celtish: feminists entered a pact with the KKK? Please show me the evidence of this...if it is indeed true, I would like to know more details, if you don't mind?

Answer 1

Based on the comments in this forum and a few of the US men's movement blogs as well as the women-hating blogs, I see a few different segments of US anti-feminists and non-feminists.

1) Some US men (and women) can't see any other way of life--for them, part of society has to have "more" or supremacy, over the other part of society. They call changes striving for equality, as a supremacy movement, since that is what they believe in. They don't see any way equality can exist--either they're in charge, or women are. So they are anti-feminists, and see feminism as a threat to their power over others. They will use any method necessary, no matter how hateful.

2) Other US men and women are more subtle. It's like how the religious people talk about gays, hate the sin, but love the sinner. They say feminism's ideas are bad, but feminists are good. They focus on a few things that are "wrong". Sometimes they acknowledge feminism was ok in the past, but say it's "bad" now. They say they're against "special privileges". But it still boils down to fighting feminism and denigrating it, often as "constructive criticism". How helpful. I consider them anti-feminists-lite, not hateful, but fairly destructive.

They are often the same crowd that says we're all equal now, so what's the fuss about? How nice for them. Others seem to have missed the equality bus when it went by.

3) The last group are the so-called female non-feminists who use the advantages of equality when it suits them, and blame feminism when things go wrong in their lives. These are women who use advances created by feminists, like educational and employment opportunities, but still treat men with sexist attitudes, both at work and at home. They of course say they're not feminists, which I'm glad of. They can be very spoiled and selfish.

The so-called male non-feminists refuse to acknowledge the positive effects feminism has created for men, as well as women. Since men are no longer considered the sole breadwinner, they are rarely expected to pay alimony, as they did in the past. But that is rarely discussed. In the past, men never got custody of their kids--now some do. But that is not totally equal. Like when has anything about families been totally equal? Yep there are domestic violence and rape crisis centers, but guess who spent years privately fund raising for them, when no one cared?

These men expect instant equality, something that women never got. Now, if something is unequal that affects men, it must be changed today. Otherwise, feminists have "taken" rights away from them. When you've worked for 40 years on men's rights, we'll talk about how oppressed you are, if you're paid less if you may or do have kids, if you're expected to be the primary caretaker of children and the elderly, and if you're afraid to walk at night alone for fear of rape--then yep, I'll sympathize with you about how unfair life is for you.

Answer 2

Female Supremacy

Answer 3

The push by feminists for "feminist supremacy" is very real and has been discussed on these forums before and numerous examples have already been pointed out. Feminists have even admitted to all this and it is not realized that feminism even entered into a pact with KKK supremacists. Trouble is that many people do not read the posts closely enough.

Feminist supremacy is also akin to Hitler's 'aryan supremacy' policies. And not many people troubled to closely examine what Hitler had been saying before he seized power. (If they had then Hitlerism, WWII, and the halocaust might well never have happened.)

Answer 4

Im not aware of Feminism itself trying to seek Female Supremacy. The concepts of Female Supremacy would have more to do with a state where men have lower rights then Women. The concept would be something along the lines that men are fundementally better at being in a led supporting role, and that Women are fundementally better at being in a supported and leading role. The reasons are based on biology of each gender having differences and making best use of those differences so the overall outcome is more effective.

Answer 5

women are superior

women have a stronger emotion and thus their imaginations are more 'empowered'
men may do more dreaming vision making up answers
but it is the female of the species that take these concepts and through the powerful emotions thrust them into reality

just as women take the tiny male sperm and provide the larger egg to bring forth new human life
in the greater arena of Quantum Observation that Particalizes the Wave of potential into actual possible manifestations
it is the woman of this planet that are the power source that the angels of creation utilize

Those who developed religions and created the concept that God is outside of us or that we are somehow outside of the Creative god that brings all things forth
Knew of the power supremacy of women

former to their times men were looked down upon as "only" able to inseminate ideas and concepts and of course go out and hunt foodstuffs and woman as the manifesters and birthers ruled the culture as well as the nests
so inevitably overturn occurred unfortunately also bringing forth religion to contract the culture into todays chaos

the current birth pangs of what shall emerge in 2012 is the creation of an equalness that shall be able to operate in the coming frequencies and keep creation ongoing
This plane is based on polarity but the existence is not the north pole or the south pole - the reality is the magnet
no Law is going to accomplish rerecognition of the fact of the magnet of humanity
individuals however will accomplish and by alignment
they shall be the survivors that will people the coming eons

Answer 6

When the word "supremacy" follows anything, I think of world domination a supreme hierarchy and a dictatorship. So, with that in mind, Women are not looking towards any "female supremacy." If that was the case, wouldn't these so called "female supremacists" have their own Militia and go into physical war to secure "supremacy?"

To think that voicing for equality leads to female supremacy, is by far, the most exaggerated idea given off by People blowing steam out of their tail pipe. As IF it truly exist. To cry out "female supremacy" is to say that one has been dominated by a Female Reich of some sort. Which to me, is so absurd, that it's not even funny.

Answer 7

I really wish some of these people would drop the term "feminazi" because it's totally inaccurate. The Nazis were fervently right-wing and very much anti-feminists. It was coined over a decade ago by a radio talk show host who seems to have a poor knowledge of history and doesn't like women even though he has three failed marriages behind him. I believe he is secretly gay and I wish he would come out and say it. I would actually respect him more if he did.

Answer 8

Do you even bother reading our posts?! Does Happy ring a bell ? Phil #3? Anyone?? I mean, surely you must have understood by now, or are you deliberately wasting our time? We've exemplified time after time ad nauseum areas of female supremacy, YET here you are still clueless as to how feminism has nothing to do with equality and has everything to do w/ "supremacy".

Here's ANOTHER list for you:

The areas of reproduction (all reproductive rights are unavailabe to men), divorce and custody, affirmative action in hiring and education, selective servicee, bigoted sexual harrassment laws, equal outcome in politics, employment and other areas, equal pay for unequal position and work.

Let me guess, you'll just ignore my post like every other one of my posts when I've systematically deconstructed and destroyed your arguments.

EDIT:

" When ever you put something to a feminist that is logical but may not go with the feminist flow,,what do you get. Nothing."
- itisfutile

Exactly.

Bottomline is that feminism was once a noble cause, but now it is only a degenerative leftist lie that can be categorized with communism and aryanism.

Answer 9

I give one example for you to ponder.

This is how supremacy is met in most cases and what I mean by supremacy. Going from what feminists call inequality to men, to inequality for men to women.

eg
In Holland they are calling for top companies to have 40% female CEO and the like. What they will not put into law is that on the reverse side there must be atleast 40% men.

So feminists dont call for laws that will be of equality. They call for laws that will be supremist over time.

That and the laws that go for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunities, but no examples of that from me, I just gave you one.

edit
Exactly my point that feminists dont think of equality. To call for equality laws, then there must be an equality law, not a law that can IN TIME, turn from one inequality to another inequality.

edit
Ill put it into simple math. Over time. Say 80% men 20% women. The new law comes in. 60% men 40% women. The law is not looking for equality because over time it is not stopping a 80% women and 20% men. Get my drift yet.

edit
Well yes I do. I just explained it. Do not make laws that can turn into reverse discrimination. Do not create laws that will over time turn from one inequality to another inequality. That is the reason you are here asking this question. Because there are laws and affirmative actions that have surpassed their need to exist, but have not been stopped. Dont allow them in the first place and call for equality laws from the get go.

edit
Yeh i didnt think so. When ever you put something to a feminist that is logical but may not go with the feminist flow,,what do you get. Nothing.

edit
join the club Connor

feminists are what they deserve to be. Invalid movement, soon to be invalid pensioners and as they are now, deaf and ignorant

Answer 10

Anti-humanists believe in supremacy concepts. Humanists do not. Before Blacks and women and other segments of society had rights in the U.S., those who did have rights, white males, had "supremacy". Supremacy was the best so-called social vision our men in those times could come up with to lead us. And, that is why they failed us as leaders. If "supremacy" is so bad today for women, why was it so OK just a few decades ago for men? I personally have no problem with men experiencing the insecurity and outrage of the threat of others in discriminating "supremacy" over them. It is ironic that men today fear what men have done to women and others for so long. It serves the cowards right. But, as I said, true humanists do not believe in supremacy concepts. What women and others have suffered in the hands of anti-humanist men in power for so long will not be suffered by anti-humanist men when we are all in the hands of humanists.