So you say you want equality?
Sounds great, as long as you’re a moron. There’s a social movement, the proponents of which regularly vomit up some variation of this noise about equality.
The problem begins with the fact that equality doesn’t mean anything unless you’re comparing two or more things. In the case of brain-addled feminists, they’ll tell you: “between men and women duh! “.
Okay, now we know what’s being compared, or we would, if anything was being compared.
Unfortunately there’s no empiricism in feminism’s brave struggle for “equality”. We’ll return to that shortly.
So what does the word “equality” mean? Don’t ask for a useful answer to this, because the pushers of this vacuous bit of pseudo-egalitarian fluffery don’t have the intellectual acumen or honesty to parse the question, much less answer it.
The real answer is that what “egalitarian” feminists mean by the word “equality” is whatever they want it to mean from one moment to the next.
Socially we can conceive of equal rights under the law, and equal access to opportunity for men and women. However, we can also construct social systems with a forced equality of outcome – such as hiring policies with a built in target distribution of sexes. Each of these can be, and are, encompassed with that euphemistic and flexible catch-all word “equality”.
Politically active feminists and organizations have never pushed for sexual equality of rights or sexual equality of access, but certainly do push for equivalence of outcome – but only in cases where a net advantage to women can be projected. They mask this behind that fluffy, flexible word, “equality”.
Has anybody ever seen a feminist pushing for equal numbers of male and female coal miners? It might happen, when coal mining becomes a job done from the safety of an air conditioned suite, without the multiple hazards male coal miners presently endure.
How about commercial fishing – thats a high paying job, why aren’t any feminists pushing for more women in the north atlantic? Because the fisherMEN doing this job are routinely killed.
In fact, the push for equality of outcome isn’t even truthful within its own corrupt context – It is a stated goal, not a real one. One of the long running campaigns of “equalist” feminism was university and college access for women, and feminism obtained that goal of equality through forced equality of outcome. A goal of equal access, pursued through mandated unequal access favouring women –
Do I need to include the dictionary definitions of hypocrisy or corruption in the body of this article?
The lie is revealed in the present preponderance of female graduates from a female favouring education system, while female favouring unequal access and systemic support persists.
Egalitarian feminism has produced a decidedly female centric inequality of both rights to access, as well as outcome. A move towards actual forced equality of outcome would be a move to benefit men.
Shall we consider what that would encompass? More male university graduates, but a dramatic increase in female job fatalities. By all means, let us have “equality” in all things.
Fortunately for those of a humanist bent, and feminists are excluded from that superset, Men’s rights activists are not arguing for a forced equality of outcome; we are not arguing for a mountain of female corpses to balance the men who continue to die in service of chivalry, female protection and female convenience.
Equality of rights is implied by the word equality, but is misdirection. Equality of outcome is actively pursued – but it too is not a goal, only a tactic to erode any area of male accomplishment. Where women have surpassed men – such as the feminist dominated realm of education, female favouring unequal access persists. But none of this is news to anybody with a brain. The only reason to discuss it at all is that we are numbed by repetition of the misleading and insensible mantra of “equality”.
This is a point of awareness, when you are told, in person or in print that “equality” is a goal, recognize the lie for what it is, and don’t allow the lie to pass unremarked. Your silence is consent.
The ongoing consensus misunderstanding that any such thing as “equality” can even exist as a concept is a mental straightjacket preventing complaint against subjugation.
In the world of reality, apart from the Orwellian super-double-plus-good-speak of mainstream political rhetoric, equality does not, and cannot exist anywhere outside of a mathematical equation.
No two things are equal. An apple is not equal to another apple, they are different. Certainly, a man is not equivalent to another man. A woman is not equal to another woman.
You may have a man and woman of equivalent education, as measured by attainment of academic credential, but are they equivalent? Certainly not. You may have a man and woman of equivalent age, or height, or weight, but if any two people can be said to be equivalent – then they are the same person.
Human equivalence is a dangerous dogma, in fact, its a dangerous religious dogma – and vacuous public concurrence with it as a legitimate, attainable goal is implicit support of an increasingly brutal apartheid.
There’s another way to state the farcical fraud of human equivalence – and it’s the dehumanizing cult of social construction. The absurdist fantasy that gender differences between men and women are learned behaviours. I mentioned earlier that feminisms holy crusade for “equality” abides no empirical evidence.
For feminist ideologues, social constructionism provides a whole array of scientific sounding happy talk, useful for ratcheting society towards realization of orwell’s nightmare.
The most obvious weapon against human rights provided by an ideological clinging to the pseudo-science of social construction is that if sexual identity is learned, then the “wrong” sexuality can be neatly classified as pathology. As quickly as you can normalize the idea that gender is a product of education, then turning the education system into a system of sexual indoctrination makes sense.
This this will likely emerge as a noticeable phenomenon in the near future, the transformation of universities and colleges into institutes of anti-male hatred and female infantalization. This might happen even sooner than predicted.
While sexual roles are partially learned behaviours, the problem with social construction theory is that it’s bullshit. The SC mandate is that we accept differences, expressed in musculature, skeleton, hormones, brain chemistry, reproductive biology as being tied to biology, but having no impact on human identity, sexual or otherwise.
Meanwhile, the mainstream of cultural zeitgeist continues to paddle us after the fictional goal of human equivalence, and the idea that human bodies are interchangeable all terrain vehicles. Soon we can all transplant our brains into mason jars or new cloned bodies.
But we’re all seeking equality.
Yes, go back to sleep.
