“All we ask for is equal respect and rights.” – Ophelia
“Feminism was born out of a genuine need for gender equality…” — Morghan
Ophelia. What a great name. A tragic case of a woman who didn’t understand her own worth, who was too weak to deal with the unfolding tragedy around her, but a beautiful name all the same. I quote the lesser known Ophelia, along with Morghan, not out of a desire to disparage or “gang up” on those who feel differently, but because these comments, with which most men and women would agree, are premised upon a fallacy.
I, too, feel that women are better off the more confident they are, and the more they are able to live their true selves. I just happen to believe that modern feminism, while certainly beneficial if it ever inspired a woman to further her education in a volitional manner, and made no further inroads to various forms of oppression, obsesses about that which can never be fixed, and clutches at The Ring in the process. The problem for modern feminists is that the “equality” they seek simply does not exist.
Now, it is certainly true that 2 + 2 = 4. This is equality, yes. It is comprised mainly of the idea that numbers, abstract representations of both the separateness and sum of existing entities, can be equal, given the correct circumstances. 2 is not equal to 4, but two 2s are. Likewise, 3 + 1 = 4, although 3 is not equal to 2. Algebra, not to go off on too much of a tangent, takes this abstract idea even further to denote that if 2 + x = 4, then x = 2. In this scenario, x also equals 1 + 1, but not 3. Therefore, haven’t I just proven my previous comment incorrect?
No, I haven’t; not the “equality” mentioned in the two quotes. You see, for mathematical purposes, equality is quite useful. If I have two rabbits’ feet, a pencil, and small box to put them in, I have 4 items. 2 rabbits’ feet + 1 pencil + 1 box = 4 things, but the things themselves are not equal. They are all different. Even the two rabbits’ feet are not the same, although they have a great many more similarities between them than the pencil or the box. To categorize existing entities, to call them “pencils” or “rabbits’ feet,” is to make use of language to communicate. If I ask for one of the rabbits’ feet, I don’t want you to hand me the box. Are you deaf?
A rabbit’s foot is not equal to a pencil. They both exist in the broad category of “thing.” Men and women also exist in the broad category of “thing.” Narrow it down, and they exist in the still-broad category of “living thing.” Narrow it further to “animal,” then “mammal,” then “great ape,” and finally “human being.”
Feminists see the category of “human being,” and this is where the faulty idea of “equality” comes in. As an individualist, I can see that all individuals who fall into this category of “human” ought to be treated with a certain respect. (I think this respect is what a lot of people refer to when they say “equality.” The respect afforded, however, is thoroughly arbitrary and can never be “equal.”) As a life-oriented individual, I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, which is essentially to refrain from the implementation of aggression (or my preferred term “coercion”) against other “humans.” This does not mean that I believe in equality. A woman whose shoe is untied does not need my help; a small child does. I’d jump to help that kid, but I probably wouldn’t even bother watching the woman. (Yeah, I know a lot of you would watch, but stay with me.) In that instance, the woman and the child are hardly equal. Yet, I hold first to the Non-Aggression Principle with both. That’s as far as “equality” goes with me.
Now let’s talk about a woman who is (or ought to be) an icon for feminists everywhere: Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. Of her own volition, she went to numerous medical classes that had traditionally only admitted men, was barred from a few, and spent her spare time as a nurse cutting up body parts to learn. This is a woman who knows what she wants, and sets about getting it. This is wonderful. It is unique, not just as a woman, but as a human being. Most men, if the systems of coercion that were used against her were also used against them, would probably not have done as much. This is persistence that, I have to admit, even I do not possess. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson is not my equal. Nor is she my better. But what she did is inspiring. It led to a great many women doctors who know what they’re doing. I am eternally grateful to the female doctor who irrigated my right ear. (Small digression: As a former French Horn player, I can tell you that few other Horn players have any idea how much they depend upon the right ear. I couldn’t tell whether I was playing in tune or not. Another digression: If you’ve never had your ear irrigated, well then, you’ve missed out, boy.)
Anderson does not need to be anybody’s equal to become a doctor. She simply has to study the human body. Her brain, separate and unequal to anybody else’s, will learn what is required or not. Any time spent searching for “equality” was time spent away from the scalpel, the books, the body parts, the classes, and the sick whom she aided.
Anderson was taller than some women, and shorter than some; fatter or thinner, depending on the other woman; more easily aroused sexually, or less; quicker-tempered or far more phlegmatic; longer or shorter hair; larger- or smaller-breasted; a more or less fine-tuned sense of humor; a greater or lesser capacity for remembering crucial medical facts. The list could go on endlessly; such is the amazing nature of individuality. There were realms of this one woman’s mind that remained unknown even to her, and none of it was ever equaled.
Although I am more interested in men, I have always championed women, and preferred a woman who could show her stuff in a traditionally male-oriented sphere, simply because the individuality of that woman would have a tendency to stand out. Her individuality does not become worth more than another’s, but it gets noticed.
I started watching “Seinfeld” because Julia Louis-Dreyfus made me laugh when she took too many painkillers while visiting Jerry’s parents. Mi-ran Jang also made me laugh when, after a successful lift of more pounds than my back would ever allow me to heft, she went all girly and started crying at her triumph, bear that she is. Nadja Solerno-Sonnenberg gets my vote for her brilliant interpretation of Shostakovich’s First Violin Concerto, based on two notes only. That’s right: two notes. When a woman succeeds, not at the expense of another, but of her own volition, she impresses men like me, and turns a great many of my brothers on big time. (Well, Louis-Dreyfus anyway, probably not Jang.)
So, in order for a woman to achieve greatness in medicine, comedy, music, or weightlifting, what “equality” is needed? Are we talking about equal access? Should a private medical school be forced to admit women? If a woman lives fifty miles away from the nearest improv comedy theater, and most of the men are within walking distance, should a special tax be heaped upon everyone to get the wannabe Louis-Dreyfus to the theater on time for rehearsals? Should money be taken from the populace by force to give every little girl a violin? Should North Korea invade South Korea to ensure that all girls who want to play with weights have the exact same weights to play with, in gyms that look exactly the same, staffed with employees who, for the most part, look and act the same?
Let’s put six little Korean girls in a big gymnasium and watch. What are they going to do? One is going to be perfectly bored, because she’d rather be home. In fact, she’s getting homesick. Another one gets up to go to the drinking fountain. Two of them start doing cartwheels. Another watches, makes the attempt, and fails. The other two don’t seem to care. The sixth is contented to stretch various limbs. Feminists everywhere, please make these six little girls equal.
Put a man three blocks east of a university, and a woman three blocks west. Both walking paths have identical traffic lights and traffic patterns. Both students are charged the same tuition, and come from financially equal backgrounds. Is access equal?
Not quite. The woman is a foot shorter. She must take more strides, and a little more time, to get to the university. Okay, move her a block closer. Is it equal access now?
No, it is not. You didn’t bother to make their brains equal. Furthermore, prior to your moving her a block closer, since he always arrived at the steps of the building before she did, she was distracted every morning with the curve of his muscular butt as he walked up the steps in front of her. (Lady, I sympathize.) That’s not fair, is it? Now she’s thinking of his manly ass while sitting in the lecture hall, thoroughly distracted. So take her out of a coed university, and put her in the exclusive company of women, who have no bulges in the fronts of their pants to admire… Where was I?
Oh yes. So now she’s at an all-female university, free of sexual distraction. We’ll leave aside the fact that the few lesbians at this university have plenty of distractions, making some inequality already apparent. We’ll also leave aside the fact that, thanks to laws largely championed by feminists, they have had to hire a male professor, complete with bulge and man-butt, who is distracting this young woman even more. (For you straight boys, I need to point out that a gorgeous man cannot compete with a gorgeous man with salt-and-pepper hair.) Beyond that, it was a beautiful fall morning, something which most of these New England “progressive” women have seen every Fall since they were girls, but this young woman, fresh from San Diego, has never seen anything like it. I mean, it’s positively fluorescent! Gorgeous! So now she’s distracted by leaves. Her quest for equality will only result in continued frustration. It does not exist. 2 women plus 2 more women may equal 4 women, but there the equality ends.
Ophelia, Morghan, their fellow feminists, and “progressives” everywhere are looking for equality, and humanity is paying the price. You cannot have that which does not exist in nature. One of the principle ideas behind individuality (and anarchy, as I see it), is that you shouldn’t want it. Once you embrace the idea, it becomes an obsession. In an effort to enforce “equality” on all Cambodians, Pol Pot ordered everyone shot who wore glasses, the “logic” being that anyone who had glasses obviously spent more time with books, and everyone should be equally smart. An extreme example, and not something with which most “progressives” would agree. In fact, most of the examples I give above are probably considered too preposterous (especially the “man-ass” one) to be taken seriously. But that’s where “equal access” and “equal opportunity” lead. When the desired “equality” does not come about, the blame lies everywhere else — the patriarchy, the glass ceiling, discrimination, sexism, mass media influence, substandard schools, stereotypes, people with glasses, a guy’s butt, etc. — because the “equality” premise is taken as truth.
The premise, however, is completely false. It does not exist. You may not even apply the Non-Aggression Principle equally, as I explained above. It certainly feels like aggression to a child who can’t tie her shoe, standing there and choking back tears, because she can see that a fully grown man sits and passively stares while her frustration is obvious. For me to do this would be to aid her own mind in initiating coercion against the truth, and coercion is death. A child who experiences such coldness immediately begins lying to herself, during which process, volition — in the absence of reality — dies, along with a little part of her individuality. A woman who stoops to tie her own shoe does not endure this. Two separate and completely unequal reactions to the same, simple dilemma of an untied shoe.
Take the government’s guns and direct them in the name of equality, and what do you have? Divorce courts that ruin men’s lives, wars started by liars who now make cannon fodder out of women “equally,” everyone on a particular land mass stolen from “equally” to fund this or that project to aid women and men, old and young, black and white, gay and straight, in the absurd quest for a nonexistent, abstract falsehood. The search for equality is “equal” to the idea behind government: that we exist not as individuals, but as a collective. With the advent of modern feminism, women are seen as a collective, in spite of the fact that each woman in this collective is an individual, with her own mind and her own volition. Every single one of those bored housewives that Betty Friedan interviewed had separate problems, but somehow the solution is supposed to be the same for each. Not so.
If a woman wants to be a fighter pilot, so be it. (Just don’t steal my money.) Very few women are up to the task. Oppression, you say? Well, I don’t feel terribly oppressed, but I couldn’t last ten minutes with those boys. Is it because of their muscles? Not really. Put untrained men who are far more muscular than I am in the cockpit, and they won’t last, either. Is it the training? No, because the muscle is also required, along with the brain. Is it the mathematics? Only in part; you need to spend time in the cockpit, and you need muscle. Is it the attitude? Oh, yeah. That’s most of it, in my opinion. I am unequal to all of them, because I do not possess the attitude, nor can I even fake it very well. Men who fly fighter jets have minds that are incomprehensible to someone who weeps at the end of Stravinsky’s “Orpheus.” I am not their equal. Most women aren’t, either.
Nor are they my betters; they’re just different. Put fighter pilots in a group (preferably with as little clothing on as possible), and you only have a rough, categorical assemblage symbolizing a particular type of “equality.” Each of those fighter pilots is an individual. None of them is equal. One of them likes comic books, one of them beds every woman he meets, one of them misses his mom terribly, one of them is fascinated by geology, one of them is a closeted gay, secretly in love with the budding geologist. The one interest and talent that unites them is flying fighter planes. Great. (Just don’t steal my money!)
If women currently searching for “equality” really want to band together like a group of fighter pilots, it’s perfectly alright to find similar interests and act upon them. However, they should never forget the following:
1. At all times, use the Non-Aggression Principle, aided by the Golden Rule.
2. Each and every woman is an individual.
3. Collectives exist only in your mind (with the possible exception of biological families).
4. Don’t steal my money!
5. Equality is impossible, because it does not exist.
6. Leave B.R. Merrick out of it. I’m far more interested in individual men and their problems, and there ain’t nothing wrong with that little bit of inequality. I give you leave, however, to impress me with your individuality.
B.R. Merrick writes for “Strike The Root” and “A Voice for Men,” lives in the Northeast, is proud to be a classical music reviewer at Amazon.com and iTunes, and in spite of the poisonous nature of television, God Himself will have to pry his DVDs of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” out of his cold, dead hands, under threat of eternal damnation.
Tags: B.R. Merrick, Culture, Family Court, Feminism, Feminists, Law, Marxism, Masculinity, Men, Men's Issues, Men's Rights, Miscellaneous, Mythbusting, Politics, Sex, Women
37 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
Roderick1268:
db917:
FarmCat:
blueface:
A very good read, this. Lots of really good points to ponder, plenty to chuckle along with. I don’t see much argument coming out of this, as the author has been both thorough and careful to cover most of the potential ‘yah-buts’.
I
why don’t we let the public know all the women only govt programs there are and then perhaps the public won’t feel like women are such victims.
@john I Agree!
A man goes to a shop and wants to buy a gift for his small daughter…he is asking for dolls…
“ok…this barbie here is $20…ken is $20, too…the barbie with the horse is $25…ken with his car is $25…and here we have our latest model…its the divorced barbie set…it costs $450″ says the guy in the shop.
“Wow…450 bucks for that divorced barbie doll?? How come it is sooo expensive??” says the other guy….
“well…because the divorced barbie set includes a house, a pool, 2 cars, stocks, furnitures, jewellery, a lot of cash money and 1000 pairs of shoes” replies the salesman.
I think you are confusing two forms of how we treat people.
One is legislatively, and this is where people should be treated equally. Laws are written for a generalized human being (that in a philosophical sense, does not exist), and the intricacies of real people are excluded. This is how people who have no idea who you are decide how to treat you. A judge, a lawyer, a cop, the people that live in your apartment, and so on. If they treat you any differently outside of that set of laws, they are judged on an individual basis.
I want to make it clear that the law is not equal for males and females right now. I am not arguing that. This is what needs to be equal.
The other kind of way we treat people is personally. When we get to know them on an individual basis. This will never be equal. No two people are alike, how could it?
For example : when two parents are fighting for custody, they should be equally judged to see who is fit to be a better parent. Superficialities like gender should not factor into the equation (being the mother doesn’t make you a better parent). Now, the judgement itself is not equal : a parent that is mentally abusive should not get custody, a parent that won’t work should not get custody and so on.
In essence, the law itself should apply equally to all human beings. But when we hold trial, decide who are our friends, who we help when they need their shoes tied, who gets custody, and so on, that is judged on an individual basis.
Legislative equality is simply a guideline. It is only the foundation of how human beings are treated.
i posted it somewhere else, but i will post it here again (hi neko)
i am a survivior…i had a wife with borderline personality disorder, i have 6 (six) kids with her (dont ask stupid questions….read Dr. Tara J. Palmatier articles at MND!) and now I am growing them up as a single father coz i left that b****…and I am still very active as a musician…lol…so stop complaining about survival skills…if u have to do it, just go for it…and thats a very masculine approach of handling things! the gender should def. not play a role when it comes to education of kids..I can only let u know…men can make it, too…but changing the nappies is hell….^^ i grew up three babies/very small kids (between 8 months and 3 years) out of those 6 kids I have and well….they r still alive…lol…funny thing is they like rock music and electric guitars…but thats ok, isnt it?? About missing a mother: mother is a huge word…full of meanings and feelings….but u can only miss a mother if she was a real mother…my kids never had a real mother, so to say…I wish they had….they will have to cope with that 4 sure…anyway, I am trying my best but I dont try imitating a mother…I am the father.Giving birth to a child as a woman doesnt make u a mother by all means…not giving birth doesnt mean u r less qualified being a good parent/father. Amen. ^^
Hi rulaz,
I’m sorry to hear about what you had to go through, I was with someone for 4 years who probably had borderline or just really bad anger issues. But you’re right, a good parent can have a tremendous effect on a child, but a bad parent will do so much harm that it’s better having an absent parent. And seriously, it’s very impressive to raise 6 children, especially as a single parent. Have a good one man.
its all good, neko..no need for condolence^^…check my channel at youtube and u can see/hear/feel that i am still alive
I really think that 1984, Animal Farm, The Prince, or Atlas Shrugged would be more appropriate references than The Ring. Yet, I still get a chuckle because it’s true about the obsession for power, rather than equality.
An office worker is NOT equal to a hard rock miner. A stay at home wife is NOT equal to her hard working husband. A grieving spouse is NOT equal to a fallen soldier.
Consider Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, falsely named and actually dedicated to propaganda. (women’s studies, mainstream media)
Newspeak – A redefinition of words to reinforce ideological propaganda. (equality)
Applied to an opponent with claims that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.
Facts only go so far, eventually you have to shove them into the faces of those responsible and explain the consequences…that’s coercion. To make change, it’s going to involve a lot of coercion. Don’t get hung up about it, it will be based on facts.
We definitely need all boys schools and not just because boys are distracted by girls but because of feminist pedagogy turning boys into girls.
I definitely think schools should be separated between the sexes…Let each school teach in the manner that is best for each sex, since each sex learns differently. It would also reduce the distractions etc.
Hi to all,
I would like to express my opinion which does not directly connects to this topic, but are rather general.
I found out about all these man’s issues only about a month ago and since then been following this and many other sites also youtube chanels. Also I have tendency to seek as much information as I can when I find some interesting topic.
So as you can guess all those men’s issues and discrimination, misandry took me completely unprepared and in fact in that one day alone (when I by complete accident started reading on this through all day) many of my believes were completely destroyed from the root. If you know from psychology it is extremely painful having your believes destroyed from the root in very short time, it was for me, even thought I am considering myself well prepared psychological wise. So I get over that quite quickly, but my point is that many people do not have that preparation and are having hard time or even depression for prolonged periods of time.
So getting to the point, I have two suggestions on what type of information, in my opinion, is more needed to compliment exposing feminism.
1. By following this movement for about a month I could not find any advices for “newcomers” how to handle psychological pain that, I think, many men had, have and will have to go through. I think it is not only important to only help people on this by itself (its very important) but also from movements strategical point of view.
For example my first reaction in that first day of awaking was anger towards all women and if I had stopped there (not investigating deeper the topic) and without psychological preparation I could easily been attracted with radical point of view (maybe even as many call “pro-rape”) since at that point of anger peak it seemed compelling in some ways.
2. Practical advice of what could every men do about it to survive and to contribute in some sense. Yes there is some information on that topic, like don’t marry, some advice with interactions with women, creating blogs, but, in my opinion, it needs to be addressed more, more deeply and more systematically.
@ zefas
I am not trying to be patronizing here, but I think you just provided excellent answers to your own question. You’re right, there is anger that comes with the end of our denial of what has been happening, and all of have to make the choice of whether we use it or it uses us. It is a challenge of varying degrees for every man, so rule number one around here is that unless someone is threatening or promoting violence, we let them vent.
And the first way to contribute is to survive. That is not sarcasm, but where we are at in the basics. After that, welcome to the hunt for information. All the stuff you wanted to read about is here, and on some other really fine blogs.
But there is no “information warehouse,” you can ask and people will help you.
For instance, here is a piece I did on marriage:
http://avoiceformen.com/2010/04/03/men-math-and-marriage/
All you have to do is ask and someone here or on the other blogs will try to help you.
Welcome. New comers are big time important.
“I think you are confusing two forms of how we treat people.
“One is legislatively, and this is where people should be treated equally.”
The problem, Neko, is that the government initiates coercion with the law, cannot take under consideration the individuality of each “illegal” situation, and has traditionally discriminated against numerous categories of individuals. That’s all coercive law knows how to do, as it is created by flawed human beings with deep-seated hurth.
“I really think that 1984, Animal Farm, The Prince, or Atlas Shrugged would be more appropriate references than The Ring.”
For the argument against equality, Denis, I would agree, but The Ring is simply a reference to feminism in general, a great big power grab.
“…deep-seated hurth.”
That should be “deep-seated hurt.” Good grief.
The article was a pretty fair analysis of why equality is unachievable. I’ve seen similar articles before. What needs to be brought to everyone’s attention is the underlying cause of all sexism and racism.
The Guv, mass media, The Federal Reserve on a multitude of levels to achieve the purpose of destabilizing the family unit, promotes feminism. By embracing the homosexual agenda feminism has strengthened it’s position in attaining its goal. Big Daddy Guv’s objective of being all things to all people is strengthened.
The feminists get lots of money along with the ACLU, Affirmative Action, the ADL, CFR along with many groups of whose existence I don’t even know of receive money that numbers into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Now say tomorrow men and women got together. They smoked a little and drank a bit and decided they’d had enough and were going to work together. Not likely but, what do you think would happen?
My guess would be the mass media would be throwing out articles of men’s deficiencies 2.5 times faster than the speed of light causing a paradox and destroying the universe.
If the universe managed to survive Obama would call an emergency telecast session claiming the four horsemen have arrived with the goal of deflowering young girls and murdering helpless mothers.
We need to proceed from the realization that the Guv wants these things. There are over 60 million statutes in the U.S. governing your actions. Laws to protect or equal out entitlements for men only exasperate the problem. What’s needed is to dismantle the laws presently in place.
NWOslave, you will find little if any argument from me.
The only equality which is not a complete disaster is equality before the law: and that is, not equal treatment, but treatment as an equal. The difference may seem subtle, but is essential.
When feminists complain about men and women ‘not being equal’, I ask them: how can you demand that, when at present, MEN are not equal?
This usually confounds them. It is not that I would seek perfect equality of outcomes for all men; rather, this question reveals the true nature of feminist ‘equality’. They look only to the men at the top, the highest 1% – it is those men whom they want to be ‘equal’ to, and they want this for 100% of women.
Pointing out that MEN are not equal to EACH OTHER, but are in fact divided by class, illuminates that feminist ‘equality’ is focused only at the top.
Hence feminists couldn’t give a crap about the male homeless, male suicides, male war dead; let alone are they trying to match women to those numbers. The numbers they are trying to match are the CEOs, the politicians, and so on. Non-powerful men are invisible, particularly those who have fallen beneath the glass cellar.
Snark…The third pargraph you wrote in your last post is absolutely brilliant!!!
Excellent article. I wrote a bit about equality not long ago, now you have inspired me to write a second part. It will be published on my blog tomorrow (Monday 8/16) morning.
The Equality Myth – http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=1682
The Equality Myth, revisited – http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=1899
TDOM
yeah snark…brilliant…I never thought about that, but u r correct…women dont wanna be like the guy in the football arena or the factory worker^^
@ Snark and NWOslave:
Unmitigated genius in both of your posts. Well done.
I am 100% for an actual roll back of government, rather than begging politicians and bureaucrats to pass special privileges for men that would just cement their authority over our lives.
@ TDOM
Please come back and link us to it. Thanks
@ Paul
The links I posted are to the two articles. The first link should work now. the second will work in the morning after the article posts. I have it on an automated schedule to post at 4am PDT.
The Equality Myth – http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=1682
The Equality Myth, revisited – http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=1899
If they don’t work, just click on my name and you’ll get the front page to my site.
TDOM
Snark, re: your comment: “They look only to the men at the top, the highest 1% – it is those men whom they want to be ‘equal’ to, and they want this for 100% of women.”
Is this original to you? May I use it, replacing “They” with “Feminists”? If so, how should I attribute it?
Thank you.
I don’t see how or why homosexuality or abortion is a men’s rights issue. Can anybody explain that to me. IMO, feminism joined together with all of the other victimhood movements for more power and to blame “privileged white men”
Snark, very profound. I had a moment of enlightenment when I read similar on Pelle Billings Misinterpreting Patriarchy. I also have these moments reading and watching Paul’s videos. To go further, the top 1% of powerful men do not use their power to help other men, they use and oppress other men. Hence, it cannot considered to be male privilege, it is class privilege.
Gollum as the face of feminism is funny.
My point being more of “democracy vs. reality”. Suppressing and controlling men is very beneficial to the state, our rulers want control and feminism is a useful tool.
@Snark
That third paragraph in your post is perfect! It’s definitely one of the “Eureka!” posts that Eincrou referred to in his “The Mens Movement – Fair but Imbalanced” article. Very good!
My brother brought this to my attention.that women(after complaining about it)is getting paid the same amount of money that men do in tennis.But they are getting paid for only 3 sets.while the men are getting paid for 5 sets.Thats why the men are getting paid the amount they are getting paid for.That doesnt sound like equal rights to me.When my brother brought this issue up in a womens chat room he visits he got called names.not just from women.but also men.hows that for equal rights.
@ sean moore
I guess thats the point when they all of a sudden remember that they r the “weaker gender” – do u still open the door or hold it open for women?? I dont…not anymore…I just do that for small kids.
Excuse this not having much to do with women, this post brings up much broader bigger topics, feminism is perched upon. Always thought we should focus on ensuring as many people act as constructively as possible, build everyone up as much as we can from the foundations nature gives us. It won’t result in equality, the base isn’t level (since we’re all individuals) and the building takes a different amount of time for each, but who cares as long as more people are Society is more than the sum of its parts, we each need people filling all the major niches contributing to the web we sustain ourselves on. Collectives exist throughout nature, we need to work like one even if we aren’t entirely to live as happily and healthily as we do; if the society (via the state supposedly representing it) that built you needs some of your money, it has the guns to take it, and probably should.
We distrust the state because feminists, among others, have captured and corrupted it, but its our best hope to break out of the hell nature dumped us with, the alpha monkey BS and lusts corrupting our individual reasons among other things. Its because i see the state as such an important glimmer of light that the feminists desecrating it angers me so much, but i see why some people would abandon its carcas to them.
Unassumption, the alpha monkeys always have, and always will, run the state.
I just typed “mens rights” in youtube search…and it said: “did you mean: womens rights”?….equality and reality,right folks??
Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article
Great article!