In the present talk we shall discuss the axiomatic counter-feminist equation that feminism equals female supremacism. It falls within the mandate of strict anti-feminism to expose the inner workings of feminism in as many ways as possible, and the present talk operates under that mandate.
what is female supremacism? It is the moral conviction, openly
stated or merely implied, that women are superior to men and that the
ruling power in most areas of life ought to be a female power. This is a revolutionary idea because it overturns many things and
modifies the details of life in a radical, far-reaching way - more
than we have time to describe here .
The accomplished outcome of female supremacism would be a state of female supremacy. Female supremacism and female supremacy
are therefore separate things: the former is the anticipation of the latter, and the latter is what the former would swing into practice in real world terms.
I would make bold that female supremacism as a system of social energy is
objectively real; it EXISTS; it is out there in the world, ranging
freely in one guise or another, covertly or overtly. I can attest from
my own observation that many people harbor this culture virus either
strongly or weakly. I would further attest that it overlaps with
"feminism" , and more than just a trifle.
It is formulaic to declare that feminism "seeks equality between
men and women", and whether or not you consider that an honest assessment of feminism, it is the one most commonly invoked. Yes, you
hear it all the time. It is what a lot of people want the world to
believe that feminism is.
So, if you believe that
feminism is "about equality", then you would naturally suppose feminism
and female supremacism to be mutually exclusive. Yet counterintuitive
as it seems, nothing rules out their cohabitation in the same individual
mind. And why? Because "equality" is an essentially contested concept.
The possible meanings of "equality" are so varied, so flexible, and so
ambiguous that (given the right mental gymnastics) they can easily admit
female supremacism in close moral proximity. That is especially true if
the thinker does not expressly call supremacism by its correct name, or
harbors the doctrine latently, as a logical consequence of unclear
thinking in some other area.
Consider also, that
feminism is a movement which advocates for women's interests; who would
dispute this? And female supremacism, if you wish to call it a
"movement", certainly does likewise; how could it possibly do otherwise?
Therefore, feminism and female supremacism converge upon the point of advocating for women's interests.
The only difference is that female supremacism, unlike "equality",
doesn't sound respectable. Most people would not openly admit to it, but
still, for reasons we have suggested, cognitive dissonance can be
rationalized. And such being given, the terrain of women's advocacy is
left wide open as a zone of conjoined political effort.
feminism (arbitrarily defined as "sexual equality") and female
supremacism may coexist in the same individual mind—and I have only
lightly sketched how this might happen. But the next step up from the
individual is the collective: what is true of the individual mind could
as well be true of the group mind, for what is a group mind if not
(among other things) the sum of individual minds composing it?
is clear that both equalitarians and supremacists may converge upon the
zone of women's advocacy—and that is a lot of overlap. And in the battle for feminism's soul, the question that occupies us above all, is
to know which of these principles is constitutive of
the feminist movement as a group mind.
Consider once again the uncertainty of the term equality,
and its doubtful utility as a category of understanding. A movement
built upon the "quest for equality" would be a house built on mud or
shifting sand, or worse, a cloud-castle built on thin air. So-called
equality, if it is to mean anything at all, must be operationalized; it
depends entirely on what is being done, when it is being done, how it is being done, and where you set the zero in the equation.
Equality is infinitely plastic in its applications; the goal-posts can
always be shifted and the parameters can always be reassigned. It is
inherently fickle and flakey.
Now consider the meaning
of female supremacism. It is easy to wrap your mind around, and in practice it would
offer no puzzling quirks or moral uncertainties. The guidelines would be
coherent and crystal clear—reducible to whatever gives women the upper
hand in a given situation. Consider also that supremacism in its naked
form would be elemental and devoid of hypocrisy, because
unburdened by the need to appear respectable.
So which of these two, sexual equality or female supremacism, would compose the stable foundation for a movement?
Clearly, female supremacism would be the winning ticket. And yet, female supremacism sounds nasty. It does not sound respectable, and any movement that openly endorsed it would have a public image problem.
contrast, sexual equality is a flakey concept that means little if
anything, and yet. . . it sounds noble. It sounds lofty. It sounds edifying. And most of all, it is so very unseemly to question it.
A movement built upon either female supremacism
alone, or sexual equality alone, would not be viable. But if you roll
them up together in the same joint (so to speak), then hey man, that'd
be some righteous shit!
so-called "quest for equality" would fizzle out very quickly if
it were not animated by a malignant will. It would not be infinitely
greedy; it would not "want it all"; it would be satisfied with a clear,
definite list of things, after which it would roll up the tent and call
it a day. And more, it is doubtful that such a movement would even get
airborne at all when you consider, once again, what an unstable concept
this "equality" really is.
Female supremacism, on the other hand, wants it all. It is a malignant will that will not quit,
but keeps on coming back for more. It is able to stay
the course; it is able to go the distance; it never sleeps and never
takes a day off, and ultimately, it will leave no stone unturned! But
again. . . it is not respectable.
Or at least, not if it walks around naked.
And that is why the rhetoric of equality is so very, very important: because it drapes the obscene flesh of female supremacism in a decent bathrobe.
once more, both sexual equality and female supremacism advocate for
women; that is where they merge into a conjoined political effort.
And their relation is symbiotic. If plenty of feminists did not have supremacist motives,
the movement as a whole would have no stable foundation, no cohesion,
nothing to give it permanence, and finally it would lack a reliable
Yet if the rhetoric of equality were missing, female supremacism
could never travel; it could never leave the house without getting
arrested! Equality rhetoric not only veils female supremacism, but
permits it to operate almost unhindered in a multitude of forms because
equality as a concept is capable of unlimited shape-shifting.
supremacism and equality rhetoric: what a team! Neither the bathrobe
nor the obscene flesh would log any mileage at all without the other.
is "equality" the soul of feminism? Or would that title go to female
supremacism? Ask yourself, where does feminism get its real muscle? What
is the true animating principle?
Is feminism powered by any so-called
quest for equality, and is such a thing even possible considering the
vacuity of equality as a concept?
Does the so-called quest for equality exist as anything more than a
RHETORIC of equality?
And finally, what does this RHETORIC of equality
in fact serve? Does it serve actual "equality" (whatever that is)? Or
does it in fact serve female supremacism?
Please think about these