Talk:Female supremacy/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 March 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Dicking around

Just so no one thinks I'm dicking around, I'm working on a page for actual female supremacy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone were to make a page on male supremacy, it would be considered sexist. ^{— Unsigned, by: Yuppie / talk / contribs}

Well clearly, then, it's the difference between "Fact" and sexism, isn't it?GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 21:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why I think this viewpoint is self-defeating

This is a very fascinating topic. But, I think female supremacy as a viewpoint is self-defeating. If a woman really believes that women are inherently superior, why would she want to have any kind of sexual relations with men? Why would a self-consciously superior being desire something inferior, as opposed to a fellow superior being? And yet, these women, coming out of the femdom scene, are still very much sexually interested in men, albeit in less than conventional ways. So, I don't think they really believe in female superiority, even if they think they do, because if they really did they'd be more like lesbian separatists instead. Likewise, for the men - if they really believed that women were superior beings, would they want a superior being to sully herself with any form of sexual relationship (even a dominant-submissive one) with something as inferior as themselves?

So, I think to be heterosexual implies a certain logical commitment to gender equality. Of course, there seem to be plenty of misogynistic heterosexual men in the world; but I think they are being logically inconsistent, if they really think men are superior to women, why are they wasting their time with their inferiors, rather than seeking the companionship of fellow superior beings? To be consistent, they'd need to drop either the misogyny or the heterosexuality. And if they dropped the heterosexuality, well gay men don't seem particularly inclined to misogyny anyway - and if some of them are, gay male misogyny is arguably less harmful to women than heterosexual male misogyny.

I think in logical terms, male superiority makes most sense when coupled with male homosexuality, and female superiority makes most sense when coupled with female homosexuality. Note I'm not suggesting most gay men believe in male superiority or that most lesbian women believe in female superiority; I think a belief in gender superiority logically implies homosexuality, but homosexuality doesn't necessarily imply any particular beliefs about gender equality/superiority/inferiority. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Rape culture. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think logic has anything to do with any of that; when it comes to hatred of the opposite sex, heterosexual attraction just provides a sanity check against it, similarly to how engaging in the life of an ethnically diverse community provides a sanity check against the less intelligent xenophobic canards. Hence, you have lesbian fanatics like Solanas, Dworkin, and Daly on the misandrist side, and gay fanatics like half the pre-1934 Brownshirt brass on the misogynist side. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How else are they going to make little girls, silly? ħuman 05:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Many of the misandrists are past caring about that. Valerie Solanas said, "It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so." ListenerX^TalkerX 05:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Martian obviously doesn't understand Earthlings. People have dogs for companionship and sometimes as assistants if they are "differently abled"; men can be useful by keeping the grass mown, redecorating the house and listening patiently to their mistress's voice. Keeping a dog requires a degree of commitment to feeding and exercising it and so does a man. Give a dog a bone and it is happy, give a man a boner and he is happy. Seemple!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thinking too hard. The lesbian separatist types are more of an ideological off-shoot of radical feminism. The female supremacists, as this article describes, are mostly associated with BDSM culture (hence why they wouldn't give up sex). It's really just a way to spin an interest or predilection into an ideology/lifestyle, like sci-fi geeks who become Singularitarians, or regular geeks who become scientists (zing!). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be right that someone who actually thought themselves superior wouldn't publicly want anything to do with inferiors, but slave owners left behind many half-black half-white children.^{— Unsigned, by: Klaus Vos / talk / contribs}

ListenerX, you are drawing a comparison between misandry/misogyny and xenophobia... I think that comparison is interesting, because it points to a real difference. If someone is a white supremacist, they are generally opposed to whites having sexual relations with non-whites; yet, here we have female supremacists, who seem quite interested in women having sexual relations with men; and the world seems full of male supremacists who are quite interested in men having sexual relations with women. So this is an interesting asymmetry, between racial supremacy and gender supremacy. I wonder why one principle seems to apply in one case, the opposite principle in the other? I suppose the necessity of heterosexuality for reproduction is a factor — whereas, "heteroraciality" isn't necessary for reproduction, although arguably beneficial to the quality of the gene pool (hybrid vigour) — but, with ever increasing advances in reproductive technology, arguments based on the necessity of heterosexuality for reproduction become less and less salient by the day. An interesting symmetry, if one thinks of the claimed evolutionary benefits for sexual reproduction, is that they are quite similiar to the hybrid vigour advantages of inter-racial reproduction — although arguably sexual reproduction has greater advantages in this respect than inter-racial reproduction. But in either case, in the days to come of designer babies, such genetic advantages will become irrelevant. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point on necessity -- e.g., miscegenation policy created by white supremacists in late 19th-early 20th c. Brazil promoted a policy called "racial whitening." IOW, "perfect" other races by interbreeding with them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I for one...

...wealcome our dominatrix overlords. Sen (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're a very naughty boy. Now bend over and drop 'em.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Just so no one thinks I'm dicking around, I'm working on a page for actual female supremacy."

Waiting. P-Foster (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I lolled... wait, is that a real word yet? Someone call the OED... ħuman 03:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Or rather, a new meaning for an existing word, with it's root being "lol", which only has one meaning ("you can't hear me, but that was mildly amusing"). ħuman 03:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone here on RW really believe this?

For those that do, consider the following: My friends say I should start dating. That's bull crap. I would love to date, but women are jerks who make you pay for dinner, by them expensive stuff, & do everything for them. Although that's changed in the modern world, it was because women wanted it to change (second wave feminism), not because men were sick of being slaves. It is socially acceptable for women to abuse men. When a man cheats, he's a perv. When a woman cheats, she is exploring her sexuality & simply made a mistake. It was the man's fault for not providing her enough. The same things apply to dumping. A woman's vanity is considered insecurity on part of magazines like "Vogue" & "Playboy". They whine about every little thing. They marry men, thinking they can change said men. Why would you marry someone you don't like in the first place? Also, after women get married, they change, as they develop a fetish for dressing as.themselves and act like fucking bitches all the time. They prefer jerks then nice guys. A lot of my friends they stop doing this when they get older, but that is not good enough for me. I do not care for a girl who is or was ever like this. They will also tell me the girls who aren't and were never like that, but they are tomboys. There are some who are far from tomboys, but don't like the idea of dating a rare girl. So why should I have anything other then one night stands?--Yuppie (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm X2 - Combo! Blue (is useful) 20:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The solution is simple. --Mack Coster (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Given your attitude, I'm surprised you get that much. Тy^talk 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You're fucking kidding me. "socially acceptable for women to abuse men"? where, in what country? If it's real abuse, it might be that the guy is embarrassed to report it (so are women, by teh way), but that's not the same thing. it's not "socially acceptable." women are "jerks" cause we "make you" buy us expensive things? for fuck's sake. I don't know any couple where, beyond the very first or second date, the costs are not shared mutually. and trust me, women lavish on their men, cause we are trained to be mothers. Besides, we know we'll be spending the next 20 years cleaning up after you. a free dinner is not that much to ask. "men were slaves?" Jesus dude, do you know anything about reality. men literally owned (and in some places still do) their daughters and wives. until the mid 1800's most states had laws on the books saying such. When a man cheats, he's a perv. when a woman cheats, she's generally dumped. and? Grow teh fuck up, and you might find a woman. though I doubt it. you might find a little girl ready to be beholden to you, i suppose.En attendant Godot 21:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because a woman has never slapt a man for buying her a cheap ring. I was talking about the United States, so talking about the Mid East does not make sense. It is still stupid that men should pay, even for the first few dates. They should all be divided. Anyway, my point was that the only reason this has changed is because women wanted to divide the payment. FYI, many women have hit on me (Which is strange, considering the fact that I am short, miserly, & have a hooked nose). In addition, you ignored my arguments about women choosing bad boys over affable boys. Also, it is spelt "the".

- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AbuseIsOkayWhenItIsFemaleOnMale

- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsOkWhenItIsFemaleOnMale

- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfairSex

- http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/adulterys-double-standard--Yuppie (talk) 10:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Troll top/bottom, anyone? Also, re: the title, I doubt anyone on RW knew what this was until I created the article. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Troll is DEFINITELY a bottom. You can just tell. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 03:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"They prefer jerks then nice guys" sounds like yuppie should be up to his eyes in fanny. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yap yap yap - girls are mean. girls suck. NEB, you might consider a add on like (bdsm) or not...En attendant Godot 03:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

??? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. the yap yap was to the woman hating young man in need of a girlfriend. The comment about bdsm was that maybe the title (since you brought us back to title) if no one knew what it was, and you were worried about that, you could but a secondary word like (bdsm) or something...En attendant Godot 05:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@Yuppie: if you think women are so bad, you could always trying dating men instead. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then he'd find out that all men are bastards. Where would he be then? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bastards who insist on splitting the bill :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm hearing a lot of men complain about the whole "paying for dinner" thing at the moment. Protip: If you want to impress a girl on a first date and have decided to take her out to a restaurant, pay the bill. Don't whip out a calculator and start demanding she pay her share. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Any gal who would make me pay the bill is not the gal I would like to impress. As for you, Maratrean, sexuality is not a choice. Did any of you even follow the links I provided?

I'm calling Poe. Sure there are plenty of arseholes like you out there but you're just a wind up merchant. Bob Soles (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and using TV Tropes as a source is a non runner. I love TV Tropes but it's hardly authoritative. Bob Soles (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I was using TV Tropes & Idioms because it gives examples. Also, one of the articles was not from TV Tropes & Idioms. Anywho, my point when I made the first paragraph was that it was ridiculous to think women are superior.--Yuppie (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why? clearly we are superiour. Name one war we have started while in office? Can't do it, can you? Name one NHL hockey (or for your brits, professional Football) game we have throuwn cause of our temper, or cause we head smashed an italian who called our sister names (oh, zinadine...sighs). Clear superiority. En attendant Godot 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be using gender stereotypes to support you, but rejecting trhem when you don't like them. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Yuppie does seem like a bit of a weirdo to me, and he said stupid stuff. But what you said-suggestig one gender is superiour-is eqaully stupid.--Harvardian (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your superiority falls apart when you need assistance in opening jars AMassiveGay (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. @Godot: Was maggie in power when the Falklands War broke out? My history fails me. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@gay. HA! knives slid under the vaccuum - releases every time. If it's sticky goo - hot water. I do not need men! They are teh bain of human existance. ;) we are far surperiour.

Miss Maggie was a women? are you sure?En attendant Godot 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is how it all starts, and before you know it, you're babbling about the sacred feminine and the size of your corpus callosum to some sex cult in San Francisco. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The problem with making sweeping generalizations of that sort is that eventually you have to resort to No True Scotsman to handle the counterexamples. Another such counterexample is that of Jiang Qing, alias Madame Mao, the mastermind of Red China's Cultural Revolution. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Neb - been there done that. I've already invited my share of males to my lair so i could freeze their sperm, thus insuring we do not need them, when we take over! muwhahahahah.

On a serious note, NPR was just discussing the wiki leaks evidence regarding teh "execution of women and children" as a horror crime. So here's my beef. I get why exectuion of anyone is a horror, and why execution of children is a horror. But i've never understood why women are "special" like kids. we are no more innocent of our desire to do harm to someone, we are no more or less innocent than a 30 year old male who isn't part of the malitia; we are no more or less innocent than any adult male. yet it's always "oh my god, they even killed the women". I never understood why women are seperated out for this special protection (in the modern world, anyhow). If we are on a boat that is going down, it should be children first, then after that - i don't know, lots or something - but not "women and children first". En attendant Godot 16:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Old habits die hard. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kind of boring, this article I say...

I mean, you could sell me some misandry, and I might buy... but you'd have to do it WITH SOME STYLE... no style, no sale... where's your fucking sense of aesthetics? Ah, irony and postmodern inconsistency-is-the-new-consistency... as a straight white male, I have the guilt-free right to hate straights, whites, and men, all I want... and I tell you, it's kind of fun... once I abstract self-hatred into ironic self-deprecation... ^{— Unsigned, by: 124.180.93.252 / talk / contribs}

This page needs balancing, no matter how much that pisses people off

ListenerX and Neb, (and apparently, Hollow) I think I understand how insanely important it must be to get your digs in on this subject, but I'd ask to at least show some wit or reliable citations when doing so. Currently, this page reads like a boring counter-propagandist page for whiny little MRAs. I think balancing the petulance is in order, in addition to qualifying that not all FSers believe this said bullshit or that. For instance, only someone with a "butt hurt" agenda, poor sense of social climate and an ignorance of history will paint all FSers as "BDSM cultists." Really, WTF.

My edits were made to balance this article toward rationalism, not vitriol. You keep undoing my edits. I'd remind you of the following guidelines here:

"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

"Don't start an "edit war", it's ugly, time wasting and counterproductive."

"When reverting substantial edits, discuss your reasons on the talk page."

--Grayson Venus (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say if this is a sexuality topic/article, and about BDSM, let's make that clear. If it's about life at large, GV is at least right that it's not *just* in the BDSM community. Though the other edits take away the POV of the article.GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 17:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Godot. I agree that if this page is to be strictly about BDSM and fetish types, we should make that clear. As for my edits taking away the point of view, I can see your point there as well, but I just so happened to find those "points of view" somewhat irrationale here on Rational Wiki. --Grayson Venus (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's your right, but it seems to me you have others to convince. I'm reverting till you can get at least 3 people on your side. No, that isn't a rule or anything, I'll just bow out if you have 3 people, and let others take on the edit war. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 18:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you add a subsection and explain the Female Supremacy movement "at large", as a point of comparison. At least it's something to start, and will avoid some of the edit wars.GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 18:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right Godot: your "rule" is pretty arbitrary and unenforceable. Why stop at three? Why not five? Or ten? Demonstrable consensus among those interested in discussing this topic is not really the point: rationalism is certainly the better focus (can one expect that here?). Out of respect for your request, I'm not going to roll back or undo anything more for the time being, but I will return to this page frequently, and I will edit again at some other point if this page does not change. If the onus upon me is to convince people why this page needs editing, it also stands that a good argument should be made likewise for keeping it as it is, which is to say, in its current form, a pinch irrational. --Grayson Venus (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'rule of three' comes from the deletion rule - it's part of the way we do things around here. Similarly, as this article rests it has liv ed for some time with only minor editing - apart from misogynistic trolls - so it is safe to assume that it's achieved some sort of consensus - even if that is of the 'meh' kind. If you wish us to accept your changes the onus is on you to persuade us why - and barging in and starting an edit war won't work. So, sure, take a breather and come back with reasons why you feel we ought to change our article. Bad Faith (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

RW is not "balanced." I'll wait for you to present the allegedly rich history and heritage of the supremacist "movement." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Grayson, do you not get "compromise". I reinforced the idea that this page as is, is mostly about the BDSM circle, and opened up a door for you. But instead of taking it, you whine. I don't get that. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 19:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

@Bad Faith: It's the misogynist trolls that I suspect are controlling this page indefinitely. And I didn't start the edit war, by the way. My edits were fairly conservative, actually. It's not like I blanked the entire page, like Nebuchadnezzar is known for. --Grayson Venus (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Godot, are you off your meds? You didn't so much compromise as revert all my changes, then stuck in a limp disclaimer on your own. You should probably practice what you preach, I'm thinking.--Grayson Venus (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the reincarnation of HK. Sam ^Tally-ho! 20:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I reverted your changes - they change the tenor of a long established article without any actual reason. I invited you to make your own section that shows how the BDSM scene is different from the general sense of the term. That is what most people would call compromise. So are you just -- GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 20:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What you actually contributed in this discussion was a mission statement to make things more clear, which my original edits managed to do quite well, if you noticed. Also, compromises usually involve a discussion where both are consciously compromising and moving forward, not one overriding the other and laying down arbitrary rules to preserve bias. --Grayson Venus (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am largely unfamiliar with this article's subject matter, but I tend to smell a rat when an editor "balances" an article by removing references. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove any reference that was truly worth keeping. Further, the tone of the article is too absolute—to the point of absurdity. I suppose that's perfectly ok, however? So it would appear that by your own words, Listener, you don't know much about the subject—but that doesn't keep you from insisting on retaining what is clearly bias and ignorance in that page. You can pretend detachment all you like where this subject is concerned; the reality is you reverted my first changes to this page within minutes of me making them. It's clear you have a vested interest in keeping the page the way it currently appears, for the most part. --Grayson Venus (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Pray tell, how can removing information from an article possibly reduce the "ignorance" of it? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Listener, I believe the summary of the edit was clear enough: Balancing article, editing irrelevant data and overly biased commentary. Your reversions to what I edited also removed balance from the article (ie: saying "some" FSers believe or say _______ rather than "all," or so and so views such and such as this or that. Where are the citations backing up these absolute statements you seem to defend, may I ask? I would think you, being one so particular about the purity of information, would see this obvious double-standard. Peculiarly, you and your friends (not sure if they are really individual people or just sockpuppets) do not. --Grayson Venus (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be much easier for you to provide some documentation of this non-sexual female supremacism, than for us to demonstrate that it does not exist. However, your failure to answer my question does not give me much hope in that regard. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yeah, I would be happy to add something if there is indeed some non-BDSM (and non-MRA troll) use of the term, but all the FS material I've seen is generally made by or targeted at crackpot dommes. But I am proud to have induced butthurt in both the MRA and FS troll crowd now (I didn't even know there were FS trolls). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I googled and got this here. and there were one or two others like "worshiping your wife". STrange things, but you know,far be it from me....GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 21:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Best nutshell take on this in that article: "What worries me though is when people project their private lifestyle choices onto public life and even politics." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Little bit of pot and kettle going on there, Neb? --Grayson Venus (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I said I would add in new material if you had it. Until then: and/or Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this a serious viewpoint?

The article does not cite any examples of actual mainstream female supremacists. Does the concept only seriously exist in BDSM culture? I understand there are examples of matriarchial societies throughout history, but I don't think that's what this article is referring to. All the external links seem to point towards BDSM sites or sites trying to separate the ideas of feminism and female supremacy. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is sort of referring to the 'femmenazi' stereotype, the Hates and Wants To Oppress Men thing, often accompanied by dominatrix imagery. But wouldn't that be a better stereotype? We might want to rewrite this to be more applicable to the arguments against feminism that crop up, ones that cite 'angry Man-Haters' as strawmen. Heck, we should have a bunch of Common Strawmen articles in a category. They seem to be oft-cited stereotypes.±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 04:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The article does have a section for that already, Female supremacy#As a stereotype. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I've never heard about the rest of the article. Most people who mention Female Supremacy talk about the stereotype, have no clue about it in relation to BDSM, etc. And I've never heard of it myself, and I have several friends in the community, but that may just be me. Can anybody verify the rest of the article is an actual thing? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 04:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor who wrote most of it, Nebuchadnezzar, is generally reliable when it comes to facts, and I understand that he is also involved with BDSM. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

OK.±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 04:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, they exist all right. Some BONs have majorly expanded the article, though, might need a little tightening up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you name an example of a prominent female supremacy activist? Any notable organizations that advocate it? To my knowledge this only exists in BDSM (which is what all the external links direct to). Mr. Anon (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I repeat

If nobody will point me towards a real life, serious, present day, non-BDSM example of a female supremacist, then I see no point in having this article. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Mary Daly (who just died last year) and Valerie Solanas were both female supremacists. Given the generally high regard those two are held in by the feminist movement, I imagine there are a few more somewhere in the woodwork. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I can give you examples of 17-18 year old boys who have never had sex with women. Two personal examples, one extreme one, and several more internet accounts. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on about? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Demographic

So what kind of people make up Female Supremacists the most? I highly suspect a large percentage of 17-18 year old boys who have never had sex with women. I specifically say sex with women and not male virgin, as the first person who argued Female Supremacy to me had several guys. Reports were that he put girls up on a pedestal because he couldn't get them; that's consistent with my other findings. Anyway, the whole thing just sounds like a hamfisted attempt at explaining the supremacy of sth they can't get and a desperate attempt to attract girls by holding them up as the greatest thing in the world; typical niceguy stuff. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on about? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Troller ToP. You missed what he/she said in the Saloon bar. --Revolverman (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm being an idiot again/failing to articulate my ideas in a comprehensive manner. Also, please don't spam your posts. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)