Male Supremacy Scale

August 2024

A rating system to identify “toxic male” social medial channels has been put forth by various feminist and liberal groups, to identify and cancel these channels. The scale was developed by a doctoral student whose name and university I will not mention. It’s not about her, so please don’t go bother her. It’s about the misandrist system that enthusiastically embraced this scale and now pushes it.

Is the scale valid? That is the real question. No, it is not. It is chock full of fallacies and outright opinions. It starts with a set of biases against men, makes assertions that are false, and uses these assertions to prove “male supremacy.”

What is male supremacy? In feminist ideology it is pretty much any male trait, real or imagined, that can be used to push a narrative of men being bad and oppressing women. It is a buzzword that a can be morphed into anything to shut down words or actions from men, irrespective of whether these are illegal, immoral or even … toxic.  Oxford dictionary defines supremacy is:

The state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status.

Let’s examine the criteria on this scale with respect to these three dynamics: authority, power, and status.

Male Supremacy Scale

  • 15 items total
  • 3 subscales – Anti-Feminism (AF), Female Dishonesty (FD), Women Like Alphas (WLA)
  • 7-point Likert scale: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Somewhat disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Somewhat agree, Agree, Strongly Agree

Anti-Feminism

  1. Feminism is about hating men
  2. Modern society prioritizes women over men
  3. Feminists are unattractive
  4. Women use feminism to gain unfair advantage over men
  5. Feminists are seeking to control men

Female Dishonesty

  1. If a man commits to a woman in a romantic relationship, she gets the upper hand
  2. In a relationship, women are less trustworthy than men
  3. Men in romantic relationships need to be constantly on guard for cheating
  4. Women have a biological drive to cheat on their partners
  5. You can’t trust women to be faithful in relationships

Women Like Alphas

  1. Women are biologically driven to seek out the highest status man possible
  2. Women cannot help but being attracted to rich men
  3. Women cannot help but be attracted to men who are in higher status than they are
  4. Women are not attracted to men who have a low social status
  5. Women are attracted to high status men

Anti-Feminism

Let’s start with Anti-Feminism. None of these five criteria are about raising male status, power and authority. They are about stopping men from questioning whether women are raising their own status, power and authority at the expense of men. How can a man questioning these things be displaying supremacy? It’s simply wanting equality, something feminists speak about very loudly at every opportunity.

1. Feminism is about hating men. Even if all men believed this, it is not about supremacy. It also begs the question why men might feel this. No attempt at all is made to examine what actions might have led to such a belief.  There is actually quite a bit of justification for men feeling this way. Just google “Kill All Men” and you will find scores of feminists loudly proclaiming this, along with their enablers in the government and media saying it’s just a joke or some other lame excuse. Very few fellow women are condemning it. I haven’t seen one feminist condemning this call for extreme violence towards men. Most cheer it on. Telling a certain group you want them dead is surely a strong sign of hatred. It is not about supremacy for a man to think this. It is about self-defense.

How about these recent headlines?

But why take my word for it? Instead, listen to the words of a staunch feminist. Dr. Suzanne Danuta Walters, Professor of Sociology and Professor and Director of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. She penned an opinion piece for the Washington Post, entitled Why Can’t We Hate Men? She states in her article, that “it seems logical to hate men.” She also states that she has “rankled at the ‘but we don’t hate men’ protestations of generations of would-be feminists.” In her conclusion, she states, “We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.” So there you have it, from the words of one of your own feminist leaders and scholars. Feminism is about hating men. You are declaring a man a male supremist for believing what feminists themselves have said. This makes no sense at all.

2. Modern society prioritizes women over men.  Once again, how does this view raise the authority, power and status of men? Furthermore, statistical data makes a very good case that society does actually prioritize women over men, thereby raising their authority, power and status instead. Who gets the majority of the assets in divorces? Women. Who is almost guaranteed to get the children in a divorce? Women. Whose accusations are believed without evidence? Women. Who has received priority admission to universities? Women. Who has received priority treatment in the corporate world? Women. Who is fired from their job whenever there is an issue between a man and a woman? Not women. Who serves longer prison sentences for the same crimes? Not women. For whom is failure to pay child support a crime? Not women. Who has to sign up for military service? Not women. Who has by far the highest work place fatality rates? Not women. These are just a few examples of how society prioritizes women over men. This criterion is actually an attempt to muzzle men who take issue with this prioritization of women.

3. Feminists are unattractive. Are you seriously trying to say that attractiveness is mandated, rather than a personal preference? What about women who are not attracted to short men? Fat men? Bald men? Poor men? Are they female supremacists? Also, why do strong, independent women even care about whether men find them attractive? Isn’t that objectifying women? Once again, this has nothing to do with supremacy. Only women wanting validation and trying to shame men into giving it to them without having to make an effort to actually be attractive.

4. Women use feminism to gain unfair advantage over men. This criterion is so similar to #2 that answering yes one automatically means yes on the other. This is bad data gathering. More on that later. See all the above comments, especially about divorce, about the unfair advantage women enjoy over men. Again, how does this criterion indicate supremacy? In fact, it indicates men try to defend against female supremacy.

5. Feminists are seeking to control men. Again, how does this indicate supremacy? It is an attempt to defend against supremacy. A strong argument can be made from just these first few criteria that feminists are seeking to control men. Trying to dictate who a man does or does not find attractive is certainly an attempt to control him.

Again I point you to the words of feminist Dr. Suzanne Danuta Walters, whose article I referenced in #1 above. She states, “So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from power. We got this.” If that doesn’t sound like trying to control men, I don’t know what does. Once again, you call men male supremacists for believing something a feminist leader and scholar has clearly stated.

Female Dishonesty

The next category is Female Dishonesty. The five criteria, once again, have nothing to do with any push for power, authority or status. Whether true or false, they are opinions, nothing more. Some even have data indicating they are truth.

6. If a man commits to a woman in a romantic relationship, she gets the upper hand. This criterion is also very similar to #2 and #4 above.  Answering yes here, means yes for those two as well. Not exactly a unique range of criteria upon which a good survey depends. There are a lot of facts that indicate this statement is true. Just look at divorce statistics. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, and women get the majority of the man’s assets. It almost never works the other way around. There are even instances of cohabitation without marriage where feckless judges award a man’s assets to the woman. Again, this criterion is simply men trying to guard themselves. This is not supremacy. Men are not trying to get an upper hand, just keep from being disadvantaged.

7. In a relationship, women are less trustworthy than men. Reliable cheating statistics do not exist. They are all over the board. Let’s look at divorce rates, for which there are hard numbers. Between 70-80% of divorces are initiated by women. That’s some pretty good data that it is a risk to trust a woman to remain in marriage. Of course, feminists will obfuscate this  with allegations of abuse. When a man abuses a woman, he belongs in jail … but false accusations of abuse against the man are boilerplate now in all divorces. Also, women believe emotional abuse is a man saying “no” to them, and financial abuse is the man not letting her spend all his money. I can see where this criterion has a bit of validity with respect to supremacy, by gaining status from painting the other person as untrustworthy. However, data indicates that there is a good cause for men not trusting women.

8. Men in romantic relationships need to be constantly on guard for cheating. This question is almost identical to #7. Answering yes to one, means yes to both. Poor data integrity. There is no statistical data to verify this, because it is all over the board … depending upon whether it comes from a feminist source trying to paint men as cheaters, or a men’s rights source trying to paint women as cheaters. This criterion also has nothing to do with supremacy. Cheating or lack thereof does not confer power, authority or status.

9. Women have a biological drive to cheat on their partners. Almost identical to criterion #8 and very similar to criterion #7. Three yes answers for the price of one. Zero data integrity. I won’t address whether this is true or not. Once again, different sources say different things depending upon their ideologies. Nothing to do with supremacy here. Cheating or lack thereof does not confer power, authority of status.

10. You can’t trust women to be faithful in relationships. Identical to #8 and #9 above and very similar to #7. Now we are up to four selected criteria for the price of one, guaranteeing a substantial bump up on the male supremacy scale for what is really just one criterion.  This is not an indicator of supremacy, for the same reasons given in #8 and #9 above.

Women Like Alphas

The next category is Women Like Alphas, with alpha meaning a high value man in terms of status, physical attractiveness, wealth, power, and bedroom prowess. The five criteria in this category are almost identical. Answering yes on one guarantees five affirmative answers.

11. Women are biologically driven to seek out the highest status man possible. Dating app statistics indicate that women overwhelmingly select within the top 10% of men with the above alpha traits. So much so, that the bottom 90% are effectively invisible. The converse is not true for men, whose selections are much more evenly distributed. I don’t know whether this is biological, but does it really matter? It is a fact that it happens. This criterion has nothing to do with male supremacy, especially for the 90% of men who are invisible to women. Pointing this out is simply a truth that many women would prefer remain hidden.

12. Women cannot help but being attracted to rich men. See #11 above. Almost all women seek men who earn more money than them. Almost no men care how much money a woman earns as long as she is beautiful and nice. Whether women can help it or not isn’t the issue. It is a statistical fact. Once again, nothing to do with supremacy. Simply another fact women prefer remains hidden.

Criteria 13-15 are almost the same word for word, and identical in nature to #11 and #12.

  1. Women cannot help but be attracted to men who are in higher status than they are
  2. Women are not attracted to men who have a low social status
  3. Women are attracted to high status men

None are supremist criteria for the same reasons as #11 and #12 above.

Fallacies

Non-Discrete Data

Trying to portray vague criteria as discrete data. Discrete data consists of distinct, separate values that are countable and finite. Assigning numerical values to opinions. While on the surface it attempts to look like continuous data, with options in a finite range. The criteria only offer a black and white, binary choice, with it left up to the individual to fill in the gaps. This is highly susceptible to bias.

Similar Questions

Two criteria in the first category are similar to a criterion in the second category. Four criteria in the second category are similar to each other. All five questions in the third category are similar to each other. Answering three criteria with a yes, instantly gives you ten criteria with a yes. That’s 2/3 of the scale and an automatic high score. Talk about a biased survey.

Appeal to Popular Opinion (Argumentum ad Populum)

Many of these criterion appeal to the popular opinion of feminists and their allies. They are not grounded in statistical data. In fact, statistical data suggests that many of these criteria they are trying to portray as supremist falsehoods are actually true. Moreover, none of the criteria except one have anything to do with supremacy … and that one applies more to women than men. It is highly likely that the people applying this scale to others will be adherents to the feminist ideology, so their opinion will be swayed towards answering in such a manner as making men look bad.

Begging the Question (Pepito Principii)

Survey responses are worded in such a way as to treat arguable propositions as facts.

Example: If a man commits to a woman in a romantic relationship, she gets the upper hand

Since answering yes equals male supremacy, it begs the question that this is a false statement, although there is considerable evidence the statement is true.

Same with this …

Modern society prioritizes women over men

Loaded Criteria

Take the criterion feminism is about hating men. This is emotionally loaded language with a high likelihood of swaying the person answering in a strong direction. How about some other options on a scale? Frustrated with men? Annoyed with men? Disagrees with men? Wants something different from men? Supporting men? It offers nothing except this one loaded option. Indeed, there is a lot of loaded language in the criteria, designed to elicit an emotional response and possibly skew the results. Words such as: : Alphas, feminism, feminist, faithful, romantic relationship, high status, low social status.

Strawman

This is worse than pseudo-science. It is a biased strawman masquerading as science.  Wording creates a straw man of negative views of men with respect to feminism. It is not neutral, but very much skewed towards portraying men as negative. This creates a straw man to easily “validate” a high supremacy level. The arguments are set up so that men’s responses can be easily knocked down and declared “supremist.” These criteria either do not exist, or are not supremist if they do.

Survey Formatting

Formatted to skew towards answers that validate feminist views. No scale with an opposing view on the other side. Using the Likert scale here is quite vague, especially since all the question are stated in a manner negative towards men. A fairer formatting would be something like this. It frames the answers, instead of letting the survey taker fill in the blanks based on their own biases.

To what extent does the platform or person portray feminism as hating men?
1 – Not at all
2 – Rarely
3 – Has some issues with men
4 – Disliking some men or some things men do
5 – Disliking many men or many things men do
6- Often hating men
7- Consistently hating men

Highly Manipulative

This scale is manipulative projection and shaming. It projects exactly what women are trying to do to men, then accuses men of doing it in order to shame the women.

Conflicting “Scholarship”

Did the author of this scale and its reviewers even examine feminist doctrine prior to writing/publishing it? Several of the the criteria judging men for believing them are direct statements from feminist leaders and scholars. One feminist states that men believing feminists hate them is misogynistic and supremacist. The next feminist exhorts all her sisters to hate men. Come on, ladies Get your doctrine, or should I say dogma, on the same page. You cannot declare someone contrary to your ideology for believing something one of your own leaders has declared, and the rest of you approved. Indeed this entire scale is contradictory in nature.

Why?

Why does this male supremacy scale have 11 out of 15 criteria dealing with men’s opinions of relationships with a woman? Western women have made it very clear that they don’t need men and that men’s opinions of them do not matter. So why make 73% of this scale about men wanting or not wanting women? It looks like someone wants validation from men and is angry that men are not giving it, so those men must be punished. Feminist academia gives it their stamp of approval because it supports their ideology, not the scientific method.

Concluding Thoughts

It appears as though this scale is nothing more than a façade to assign “supremist” values to criteria that are simply truthful facts and have nothing to do with supremacist traits of power, authority or status. These truths run counter to the feminist ideology and agenda. Assigning “supremacist” values to any people expressing these truths, is an attempt to censor and silence them … while hiding under the umbrella of academia.

Site Footer

Sliding Sidebar

Archives

No archives to show.

Categories

  • No categories

Articles

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Officially defined as policies and programs that promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals. Except it doesn't include white men. It specifically excludes them while silencing them by calling them racist or misogynists if they object. It organizes traits of the rest of the people according to a notional victim status, with those higher up in the hierarchy gaining privilege at the expense of those below. Grifters calling themselves DEI experts and consultants have extracted millions of dollars from business and government offices promoting this divisive traitism. Reducing social cohesion makes people easier to control. Working in a diverse setting increases, rather than decreases, the breakdown of social trust, even within the same socio-economic class.

Men Going Their Own Way. A general philosophy (not a movement) of men focusing on themselves, rather than playing the rigged Western game of engaging with women and losing their assets and children to them through a legal system biased against men. As with all philosophies, there are some elements that are more radical.

Judging, elevating or favorably treating others by physical characteristics, or traits. Replaces racism due to the fact that there is only one race, human.

The overriding view that women are strong and independent, don’t need men, and are more competent and wiser than men. Men are to realize and admit that they are both inferior and toxic.

Giving too much attention and affection, whether through gifts, compliments, or acts of service as a way of seeking validation from someone else.

Instead of accepting responsibility and facing the uncomfortable situation head-on, the deflectors will try to move the focus from themselves, usually by passing the blame onto someone or something else.

Individuals are confronted with two choices, both of which have negative results. The choices are framed to produce an emotional response in the person, forcing them to choose or look bad. The individual will fail, no matter what choice they make. The abuser will use this as leverage to further manipulate the victim by depicting them as weak, flawed or ineffective.

The manipulative process by which individual or collective freedom of choice and action is compromised by agents or agencies that modify or distort perception, motivation, affect, cognition and/or behavioral outcomes. The person being mind controlled is not aware of the influence process, nor of the changes occurring within themselves. They believe they are acting according to their own choices.

A declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc. to frighten and emotionally force a person to do something.

The intentional manipulation of another person’s emotions to induce feelings of guilt. It is a form of emotional blackmail that is often designed to manipulate other people by preying on their emotions and making them feel responsible for something they are not.

Using sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. Manipulators use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them. Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them or say no.

Attempting to establish a perceived close bond with someone very quickly to overcome their natural caution and use them for money, resources or work. This is often involves a quick push for friendship or intimacy.

A manipulative tactic where someone portrays themselves as a victim to gain sympathy, attention, or caregiving. The goal is to make the person eliciting pity seem like a victim, which can make it easier to get what they want without being seen as a bad guy. This is because people are naturally inclined to help those they pity.

A woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered, until something happens. Then she chooses which state benefits her the most.

A woman is simultaneously a victim and empowered, until something happens. Then she chooses which state benefits her the most.

A Chad is a stereotypical alpha male. He is depicted as attractive, successful, muscular, cocky and very popular among women. He has a tendency to play the field and will not commit to any woman.

An enabler of a highly narcissistic person or someone with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). A flying monkey is an agent who acts on their behalf.

Projection involves taking an unacceptable part of oneself, disowning it, and placing it onto someone else. The manipulator describes the victim and paints them in a light that more accurately portrays the attacker himself.

Toxic amnesia is a tactic where the perpetrator pretends to not remember abuse, betrayals, lies, and other hurtful and dysfunctional behaviors they've engaged in. Its a form of gaslighting. Its purpose is to make you doubt your perceptions and memories.

Narcissistic rage can be triggered by various situations, such as criticism, perceived rejection, or being ignored. The reaction is often extreme and disproportionate to the event or comment, as the narcissist's fragile ego struggles to cope with the perceived attack on their self-image.

Triangulation is when a toxic or manipulative person, often a person with strong narcissistic traits, brings a third person into their relationship in order to remain in control. There will be limited or no communication between the two triangulated individuals except through the manipulator. It may appear in different forms, but all are about divide and conquer, or playing people against each other.

The action or practice of lavishing someone with attention or affection, especially in order to influence or manipulate them.

Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. This produces a feeling of mental discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.

To gaslight someone means to manipulate another person into doubting their own perceptions, experiences or understanding of events. ~ American Psychological Association

Because their sense of self is determined by what others think of them, narcissists use relationships for self-enhancement. Everyone must feed them. In addition, they seek validation and attention in their public and professional life. Other people are used as objects in order to provide their supply. For example, they may need constant compliments or applause, more status and money, or may check their appearance in the mirror several times a day. ~ Psychology Today

Fraud that targets people belonging to a particular community or group, typically that in which someone pretends to be a member of the group in order to gain the trust of others.

Second Attack
Second Attack
First Attack
First Attack
Initial Dispositions
Initial Dispositions
ZSU 23-4
ZSU 23-4 Anti-Aircraft Gun
TOW Missile
TOW Anti-Tank Missile
T55 Tank
T55 Tank
SA7
SA7 Surface to Air Missile
M113
M113 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC)
M48 Tank
M48 Tank
Hawker Hunter
Hawker Hunter Jet
BTR-50
BTR-50 Armored Personnel Carrier
BM21 Stalin Organ
BM21 Stalin Organ
Howitzer
Howitzer
AT7 Anti-Tank Missile
AT7 Anti-Tank Missile
AT3 Sagger Anti-Tank Missile
AT3 Sagger Anti-Tank Missile
120mm Mortar
120mm Mortar
AT4 Anti-Tank Missile
AT4 Anti-Tank Missile

Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

A religious leader uses valid verses or concepts from the Bible about following and obeying God to generate enthusiasm in people, then misdirects that obedience to himself as a representative of God. The group believes they are following and obeying God, but in reality are obeying the leader.

A fictional, exaggerated version of an opposing viewpoint, especially one that is intentionally created to be easy to dismiss or argue against and to make one's own argument seem stronger. Straw man arguments can be made unintentionally, but most are made on purpose to make the other side seem evil, incompetent, or extremist.

The religious leader distracts members from mentally registering what he is doing.  Screaming praise to God when something he proclaimed does not come to pass.  Acting like a bad thing is really a good thing.  Just keep talking and talking and talking, while ignoring that nothing is happening. It is the same thing politicians have done successfully for years.

The leader calls members flattering adjectives or nouns, like righteous, holy, or saint.  These are often vague and difficult to define, so the member feels the leader’s superior knowledge has recognized something good in them.  Conversely, if the leader later withdraws this praise, the member is eager to toe the line to recover it.

Manipulation of a person or group's emotions in order to make them believe something is factual (or false) in the absence of any evidence. The manipulator tries to draw on the recipient's inward feelings such as fear, pity, or joy with the goal of convincing them that the statements being presented are true or false.

Essentially a black-and-white worldview with the leader as the ultimate moral arbiter. This creates an atmosphere of guilt and shame, where punishment and humiliation are expected. It also sets up an environment wherein members spy and report on one another. Through submission to the guilt-inducing and impossible demand for purity, members lose their moral bearing.

The use of jargon internal to (and only understandable by) the group. Constricting language constricts the person. Capacities for thinking and feeling are significantly reduced. Imagination is no longer a part of life experiences, and the mind atrophies from disuse.

The process whereby the group becomes the ultimate arbiter and all nonbelievers become so-called evil or non-people. If these non-people cannot be recruited, then they can be punished or even killed. This process creates an us-versus-them mentality that breeds fear in followers who learn that life depends on a willingness to obey. This is when individuals merge with the group’s belief.