Feminism vs. Female Supremacy

from JoeUser Forums

In an earlier article, I delineated the difference between feminism and female supremacists. For the record, I STRONGLY support feminists, but i do NOT in any way support female supremacists, who have hijacked the concept of feminism from its original intent. Here are key differences between the two:

  • Both claim to support a woman's "Right to Choose", but the feminist supports the woman's right to choose life even when the consequences of such a choice might inconvenience her; and to choose abstinence. The female supremacist insists that the right to choose include public sponsorship of abortion through subsidized payments and promotion of clinics that strongly downplay adoption and abstinence.
  • The feminist takes pride in her body and her person and realizes that her equality hinges on NOT pointing out the sexual differences between her and en in the workplace; the female supremacist will not only note these differences, but will often exploit them to their own advantage, up to and including using sex as a tool for career advancement
  • The feminist sees herself as an equal to men, and relationships as a mutual partnership. The female supremacist sees herself as the superior, and as the head of their relationship.
  • The feminist is often a strong assertive woman, while the female supremacist is usually overbearing, aggressive, and manipulative.
  • The feminist is often found in the workplace, but will also often choose to stay home with their families, and note with pride the substantial difference they are making in society. The female supremacist looks down on the stay at home mom as a harmful stereotype, and opts instead for surrogate caretakers when they choose to have children. They will often use peer pressure to attempt to proselytize friends who opt to stay at home with their children, and are militant about their position.
  • The feminist is an integral tool in building a healthy society; the female supremacist is a disease working hard to destroy society.
7,462 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
an agnostic amen to that!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gid I was just wondering....do you sit around and think this stuff up on your free time or is it life evolving??

I guess more specifically, what is your motivation for this article? Does a certain situation happen that makes you think about it...or is it slowly built over time and many instances?

Just wonderin.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

The feminist is an integral tool in building a healthy society; the female supremacist is a disease working hard to destroy society.

I like that line very much!  I think that sums it up nicely.  I have always admired true feminists having been surrounded by them most of my life.  But I dont tolerate the supremacist at all.  For like the ugly boor that some men are, they are just as myopic and small minded.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The female supremacist has caught a disease rampant in groups that were once subjugated, in some manner or another, be it physical, spiritual or otherwise. Rather than recognizing a wrong behavior as wrong regardless of who perpetrates it, they turn to the role of the aggressor and want pay back, often for wrongs never perpetrated directly against them, paid out by people who were never involved in the wrong behavior in the first place.

When an incorrect behavior is done out of ignorance, reform is possible, and that reform should be respected. The complication comes in when someone acts in a way that they know to be wrong. There are two cases where this might occur. One is where it is on account of a prevailing social attitude, which as we all know is difficult to resist, as many people do not hold to their convictions very strongly when presented with a weighty opposing opinion. The second is where one knows something to be wrong, societal influence backs that up, and yet continues to follow that idea. The former, while obviously negative, should be forgivable, to a degree, provided the person is willing to admit the error, and work to rebalance the situation. I find the latter to be absolutely reprehensible.

What the femal supremacist has taken is an idea that we should have always been treated equally(in terms of law and ability to pursue opportunity) and since they were on the receiving end of that stick, they should be able to reverse it, since they are superior and would never have done that in the first place. It's this central contradiction that I find to lump them into the reprehensible latter category I mentioned above.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
by the way, in case my first post didn't show it well enough, I am in complete agreement with Gid, and consider this an excellent article. I only wish I had more time in my day to be more involved and start posting some of my own articles. Quite an insightful piece, although I wish it would be obvious to more people.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Personally, I don't know why feninazis insist on being equal with men. My husband has me on a pedestal....why would I want to come down?

but seriously, I think the biggest differece is the selflessness vrs selfishness.
Feminists (twitch, twitch such a negative word now) have the welfare of others as a priority but they don't allow themselves to be abused or neglected either.
Female Supremacy (Feminazis) want everything for me me me and think "nothing should incovinice MY life, MY plans, MY job opportunities. Oh yeah, and I should be nice to other people sometime too....maybe."
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

I guess more specifically, what is your motivation for this article? Does a certain situation happen that makes you think about it...or is it slowly built over time and many instances?

Both, Tova. You see, shortly before my youngest daughter (now 3) was born, I found out a lot of information about my paternal grandmother. One of my aunts absolutely detests her because, in 1930, my grandmother held a master's degree (at a time when most women didn't even attend college), and yet she chose to stay at home and raise her family (in my aunt's estimation, "wasting" her education). I felt (and still feel) that my grandmother's choice was as noble, as affirming to her self and as empowering as a woman who chooses instead to be in the workforce. You see, my grandmother did not choose her role in life because she had no other option but because she felt it was a more noble calling. As a result, our daughter was named, in part, after my grandmother.

But as my girls grow older I see increasing pressure on them to be something else, to be "victims" of some concocted "patriarchal conspiracy" to "keep women down", and I see pressure even among their influences (the direct impetus for this article was the group Girls, Inc. because of its connection with American Girl, a company my family patronize). I want them to know the other side; that there is still such a thing as a woman who is strong, powerful and assertive and yet respects "traditional" female roles. And above all else, I never want them to have the contempt for their mother that my aunt has for hers. I want them, in other words, to see the other side.

Does that answer your question?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Does that answer your question?


Very well, thank you.

Gid, I wish you were MY dad....hehe. Your girls are so lucky...and your grandma sounds like my kinda lady!

I often wonder when I read your articles, even the ones that I don't always understand (ha), what made you write it....

A great story....and one I am glad you shared!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
In other words: "Feminists" agree with my idea of how women should act; "female supremacists" exceed the boundaries I have placed on women.

If you really want to support feminism, stop trying to pigeonhole women.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
In other words:


In other words, like your symbol, you are trying to dictate to all others. The only change you have made is getting more narrow minded.

You are doing well in that category.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tsk. The symbol is the revolution of the working man. The rest is my resistance to any man's take on the affairs of women. When Catholics start letting women use contraception, I might start thinking about taking you seriously. Until then,

Cheers.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tsk. The symbol is the revolution of the working man.


You have made the complete conversion! Now, you may vacation in Cuba, NK, or perhaps China!



You are a parody of ideals! Like a Southpark episode or perhaps even a Simpson one!

Please don't kick the caviar as you goose step!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

In other words: "Feminists" agree with my idea of how women should act; "female supremacists" exceed the boundaries I have placed on women.

You're slipping, Myrr. You came in here LOOKING for something to argue. That is not even REMOTELY what I said.

You just dropped about 1,000 notches in my book with that comment, myrr, because you essentially branded my wife as worthless because she chooses to be a stay at home mom by siding with those who cast such aspersions on her (YES, it IS my wife's choice). You want I should DEMAND my wife get a job, myrr? Doesn't that go against the 13th amendment?

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

you essentially branded my wife as worthless because she chooses to be a stay at home mom by siding with those who cast such aspersions on her
That is one of my main beefs with feminazis.  They seem to think that if you choose to stay home and make your family your main priority you are selling out or just perpetuating some stereotype they are fighting against.

Women have been caring for their families since the beginning of time.  I say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  A lot of these women who claim they "have it all" have a lot of stress and not much else to show for it.  Don't get me wrong, I don't judge women who have careers.  I don't even judge women who choose to have a career even if they don't "need" to work.  I just find I get judged by them an awful lot.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Like a lot of ladies here (and spouses of others), my wife has chosen to stay home and be the primary teacher (in more ways than one) of our 4 lovely children. This is a decision that she reached 10 years ago when your oldest was born. Has it been easy? Not at all. Dealing with four small children all day is a trying experience. Additionally, there are times when only one income has made things a little ... tough. We've made it (so far).

Now, here's the thing - If my wife was offered a job with minimal stress, short hours and paid $100,000 a year and was supposed to start 6 wks after our oldest was born, would I ask her to take it - even if it meant she couldn't be at home with the kids? No. For several reasons - the first being that it's her choice to make. Second, I've seen the affect it's had on her - it's rough, but she gets almost as excited as the kids do with the stuff that they're doing together. Third - I've seen what it does for the kids. They, polite, well-adjusted kids that have had comments made about their wonderful behavior. I believe that having their mom home with them all day (and doing things with them that a mom should) has made a VERY big difference in their lives.

Now, we have had comments directed at her from some of the more ... militant ... feminists (Gid's female supremacists, JillUser's (and Rush's) feminazis. My response has always been "Stuff it. I can't help that you don't have the balls to do it yourself." That tends to get them huffing and puffing so hard, they can't respond ... And then I duck out the back door before they catch their breath.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

That is one of my main beefs with feminazis. They seem to think that if you choose to stay home and make your family your main priority you are selling out or just perpetuating some stereotype they are fighting against.

I try to avoid the use of the word "feminazis" because, while the mentality exists, I believe it not to be the mentality of most career women. I feel there are many women who are true feminists, female leaders and role models that my girls can admire who DO respect ALL choices for women, even those who CHOOSE to stay at home.

I'm actually NOT a supporter of the draconian male dominated system that predominates much of traditional culture, and of our society. Not only are some men poorly equipped to lead and undeserving of automatic elevation to leadership positions, but many women have not only the ability and inclination but better ideas because they represent a perspective that has never been the political majority in our culture. I simply believe that women who DO stay at home, women who DO choose not to abort their babies in the face of trying circumstances, be given respect for their positions as well. And I don't feel that's an unreasonable request.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I feel that the difference is one in perception. All feminists want to fight perceived inequalities, sexism and oppression. However, the differnce between feminists and those you label female supremacists is a matter of perception. Also, it is a difference of perception on the part of other people as to what constitutes these inequalities and sexism. And, it is a matter of perception on the individial person. For example, you wrote

"The feminist is often a strong assertive woman, while the female supremacist is usually overbearing, aggressive, and manipulative."

That is an area where there is a fine line between what people would consider strong and assertive, and b*tchy. I don't know if it is so much of a fine line, or more of a grey area. Basically, it is a matter of perception. Same with

"The feminist is an integral tool in building a healthy society; the female supremacist is a disease working hard to destroy society."

Again, some peopel have differnt opinions on what constitutes the destruction and betterment of society. Just look at the same-sex marriage debate.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, some peopel have differnt opinions on what constitutes the destruction and betterment of society. Just look at the same-sex marriage debate.


When someone tells my wife, or even implies, that she is NOT GOOD ENOUGH; that her choice is somehow less noble and less worthy, than that of women who choose the workplace as a primary or equal obligation to their role as mothers, then that DEFINITELY helps to destroy society.

If you stand by the message that a woman has a right to chooce the direction for her life, then those choices should INCLUDE staying at home in a "traditional" role; denying women those choices is as appalling and oppressive as the system these women claim to hate.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I try to avoid the use of the word "feminazis" because, while the mentality exists, I believe it not to be the mentality of most career women.


Gid, that's because most career women are feminists not feminazis/female supremists.
You say female supremist, I say feminazi.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gid, that's because most career women are feminists not feminazis/female supremists.


That sentence stated exactly what I was trying to state in this article by differentiating between the two. Thanks.