Is modern feminism a type of female supremacy?

Post Reply New Topic

Ironically those people are much less popular among feminists these days.

It’s weird to me how people seem to get second wavers confused with third- and fourth-wavers. I mean, OK, the “wave” terminology is of limited use, and OP didn’t use it, but feminism in general has gone from a fringe philosophy that occasionally made good points in amongst the sweeping judgements, to a mainstream philosophy that is much more responsive to the everyday concerns of women.

I don't like it when women form an ideology which depict men as "the enemy."

I certainly don't believe women are "the enemy."

I agree with this. Just like as a gay man I don't like it when other homosexuals bash heterosexuals. It's not that I've never been a victim of homophobia myself, I was bullied all throughout my childhood for being gay before I even knew I was actually gay. But I'm enlightened enough to realize that not all straight people are out to get me just because of my homosexuality.

And I guess that's what bothers me about these things. Like when some feminists claim all men are badguys or some People of Color claim all white people are badguys. Shouldn't common sense prove that wrong?

I guess it goes to show that making sweeping generalizations of any groups, even the "oppressors", is very wrong and ignorant.

The OP's question would be a lot easier to answer if we defined terms. Who qualifies as a supremacist?

Does it only refer to people claiming publicly that one group is broadly superior to every other, or deserves broad preference? Or does it include people using back-handed methods* to achieve the same result?

(* i.e. laws with disparate impact, unequal enforcement of laws, variations on the "separate-but-equal"/"separate-but-fair" doctrine, etc.)

By the former definition, a lot of Jim Crow segregationists wouldn't qualify as supremacists per se. By the latter definition, a lot of mainstream political factions would (including some feminists and classists).

Yes, if it's defined as a "belief in the superiority of a race or class of people" (as Wikipedia says) then it's hard to prove a person's real beliefs, and there's even an argument for not seeing supremacism as such a bad thing - we're supposed to tolerate beliefs, however wacky we think they are, and even a supremacist belief might not be dangerous, depending on how it influences behaviour. Belief in one's superiority to others might motivate more kindness towards them. And I gather an overoptimistic sense of self-worth and personal strength is thought by many to be a vital and normal coping stragegy. So yes, we might need a better word than supremacy in this thread. When I commented before I kind of sidestepped the problem of the title and assumed it to be worded slightly differently, on the grounds of "I think I know what he means."

Modern feminism is not a type of female supremacy. You're thinking of second wave feminism. Modern femism is very much for the equality of men, women and enby people. TERFs are basically feminists who got left behind in the second wave.

It's not a no true scotsman to say that good feminists will do good things while bad feminists will do bad things. It would only be a no true scotsman if you had said "no true feminist" would do this bad thing.

Since when has Black Lives Matter turned into a crusade against white people?

There certainly do exist some groups in the black community with strongly anti-white views, such as the so-called "Nation of Islam," which believes that white people are literally "devils." But, as far as I can tell, such groups are not playing a significant role in Black Lives Matter.

....are you really being serious? You don't call it a crusade when some of these people have literally demonized the entire white race by declaring us as "the white devil", or invented some absurd theory that ALL white people are racist and ONLY white people are racist?

I'm sorry but I do not take anyone who makes such sweeping generalizations about any group seriously. I don't care if the rest of the world is agreeing with such BS.

"White devil" is NOT a term that most Black Lives Matter activists would use, as far as I can tell.

"White devil" is a term used by people in the so-called "Nation of Islam" (NOI) and similar groups.

As far as I can tell, Black Lives Matter activists (especially their leaders) are mostly Marxist-leaning leftists, not NOI people. Marxist-leaning leftists don't use terms like "white devils." They just don't. They do talk about "white privilege," but NOT "white devils." There is a huge difference between these two concepts.

Pretty much agree with Mona that you are wrongly conflating BLM to the Nation of Islam. I do agree with you that often “white privilege” often leads to “all whites are racists” and black people can be prejudiced but not racist because they define racism as a power thing. IMHO that is ascribing a negative trait to a group, thus a racist way of thinking.

Humans are experts at becoming the very things they hate. That's why many people of color have turned into racists and many women have turned into misandrists. They don't realize or care they've become no better than the people they hate. Which is ironically yet another reason why I hate humans.

I feel that on every level.

iwould never identify as a feminist in the 80s and 90s because the “feminists” were the people who treated me with anger and distance for having the life I wanted (and wanting it). Meanwhile all my best friends were male.

Ironically I seem to have been on “team feminist” all along, because while I was staying home, homeschooling, and enjoying my life, I raised:

a daughter who has a very successful career in a male dominated field and a “trophy husband” (nobody can believe a guy who looks like that married her) who is doing an excellent job as a stay at home dad.

a son whose wife is in a pink collar job that pays less than half what he makes and has shorter official hours, but who does not feel pressured to do more of the household tasks (in fact he’s the chief cook because he likes to cook.) at thanksgiving she was telling me about her coworkers whining about their husbands and she said “it got to be my turn and I just said “yeah, that sucks.” Sorry ladies, my marriage is a partnership. Choose better?”

And an angry gen z who would like to know where all the actual men are - she would like one like her dad - who has his sh*t together and will provide her with the traditional lifestyle she would like to enjoy without looking down on her or telling her what to do like she’s a child. (Pretty, athletic, smart, and will pamper you, keep track of all the details of your life, cook good food and keep your house clean and attractive. Can change her own oil and tires but would rather not. Good with a chainsaw. - much better catch than I was.)

I really don’t dig the “perfect woman” type.

I have feminist beliefs similar to the mainstream “women’s lib” ethos of the 70s, without the bitterness towards men.

I admit I don’t care about interior decoration and all that stuff. And I’m not handy around the house.

What I dig in a relationship is someone who thinks I’m the cat’s meow, and I think she’s the cat’s meow. I fold my clothes, and you fold your own clothes. Autonomy, yet romance, is the way to go!

My Dd would actually probably be a horrible match for anyone here - she’s an extreme extrovert.

What she needs is someone who thinks she is awesome and is willing to provide the household income and keep an eye on her car. In return his house would always be clean and attractive, his food would magically appear, his clothes would magically be clean (and purchased for him if he didn’t want to pick them out himself), his appointments would be scheduled on request and reminders issued, his errands would be run, his relatives would always have thoughtful and appropriate gifts (he would still need to remember DD’s occasions), his friends and business associates (if appropriate) would be welcomed and entertained, and his children and pets would be cared for. It is however important this this person be reasonably intelligent, affectionate, respectful, and competent at taking care of himself - he cannot be looking to replace his mother.