What Gender Equality Means To Me

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8283]

Everyone gets rewarded or punished based on their actions. Everyone gets paid according to their talent, how many hours they work, and for the quality of their work. Universities and corporations select the best qualified students/workers based on their abilities and achievements. Every 18 year old person signs up for Selective Service or we abolish the draft entirely. Men and women in the armed forces carry heavy gear and fight in dangerous combat zones. Judges will give prison sentences according to the crime, and men and women will get the same sentence for the same circumstances. No laws are made that give one gender an advantage over the other. Each person is responsible for the quality of his/her own life.

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[UntamedParticipant]

FunInTheSun wrote:

Everyone gets rewarded or punished based on their actions. Everyone gets paid according to their talent, how many hours they work, and for the quality of their work. Universities and corporations select the best qualified students/workers based on their abilities and achievements. Every 18 year old person signs up for Selective Service or we abolish the draft entirely. Men and women in the armed forces carry heavy gear and fight in dangerous combat zones. Judges will give prison sentences according to the crime, and men and women will get the same sentence for the same circumstances. No laws are made that give one gender an advantage over the other. Each person is responsible for the quality of his/her own life.

Those would be laws in an MGTOW world, a world really ran by MEN, not pseudo-men who have accepted the yoke of feminism to weigh heavily on their path in life while betraying their very gender into servitude and denigration.
The reality is that there never was, is or ever shall be any equality between Man and Woman. It’s a false concept, a feminist trick played upon the male population to lull us into a sense of fairness and balance, to disarm us and exploit our White Knight nature. The natural order of things dictate that there be a “leader” and a “follower” and nature has, since the creation of Man, dictated that the male gender would run things while being subjected to heavy responsibilities for being the lead.
Their concept for subjugating Man and usurping his authority was simply a stroke of pure evil genious. It was a good plan and it worked for a while, until the X-generation. This generation does not content itself to follow the next in the traditional beaten path. We’re waking up in droves to their treacherous and vile plots and we don’t intend to be served up misery while saying “Please, ma’am, I’d like some more.”

Don't let them Blame, Shame or Tame you!
Give 'em NOTHING, not even an answer!
#GenderSegragationNow!

[uchibenkeiParticipant 7965]

I don’t disagree with you. The problem with fairness and equality is that each individual has a different idea of what that is. It will never be achieved. It’s impossible.

I bathe in the tears of single moms.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

I agree with your definition but would expand to include no laws giving advantage to ANY group (religious, racial or ethnic group, farmers, industries, etc).

To me, what you propose constitutes equality of OPPORTUNITY.

As for equality of OUTCOME, I’m AGAINST that. You are going to have unequal outcomes. Life isn’t fair. If I’m raised by parents that care about educating me, teaching me work ethic, etc I’ll likely turn out better. We won’t have as many women in STEM, especially working, in, say, heavy industry, because they do not wish to do that sort of work in general (to cite merely one example of different outcomes for the genders).

The problem I have with feminism is that it’s become a quest for equality of OUTCOMES using LAWS (the threat of State violence).

I’m pro-feminist if by feminism, one means equality of OPPORTUNITY and nothing more.

[FermatParticipant 3478]

Sounds like a eutopia. Women can’t thrive in a eutopia because there’s nothing to b*tch and moan about in such a world. Hence they would dissolve and melt away from the lack of things to f*ck up and later complain about. I suggest we perfect artificial womb technology before the women die out. Otherwise I’m on board with this. 🙂

I have discovered a truly remarkable list of reasons why women are not necessary for a happy life, but alas this margin is too small to contain it.

[Jon the Ex-SquidParticipant 298]

FrankOne wrote:

I agree with your definition but would expand to include no laws giving advantage to ANY group (religious, racial or ethnic group, farmers, industries, etc).

Some laws are designed to have an end-date. As an example, there are laws on the books to fund various farming businesses. They needed these laws before the age of heavy industrialization and big agriculture because, money-wise, farming just wasn’t worth the effort. You could bust your ass from sunrise to sunset and still barely make a profit. Or you could sell off your farm and move to the suburbs, get a middle-wage factory job, and live better. So they developed those laws to incentivize farming, protect the farmer against crop failures, etc. If they hadn’t, there wouldn’t have been enough food.

The problem is that no one wants these laws and entitlements to ever end. So they stay on the books and the minute they’re challenged, some group/lobby/party screams bloody murder so the government backs down.

My point in all this is that sometimes you need laws to deal with a situation faced by a group of people (profession, race, religion or gender) to address a specific issue for a fixed duration of time. The real issue is that those laws just never go away.

As an example, I might be able to argue that the whole point of alimony was reasonable in the 40’s and 50’s because the culture at that time was simply that women stayed home with the kids, so in the event of a divorce, they had no real skills that could lead to a self-sustaining lifestyle. You see? But now? No. The laws were never updated to reflect the changed dynamic. Also, of note, you had to have a reason for divorce back then. Now? Nope.

I’ve often done the mental exercise of what I would do if I was governor/president. My first order of business would be to review every single law that’s still on the books and get rid of anything that isn’t necessary. Where was it, NC, I think, where they -just- repealed the sodomy law?

Ugh. Life would be so much easier if other people weren’t involved.

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

Jon: I agree on laws. Really, the dynamics of it are simple: The small special interest group that benefits from legislation has a LOT to lose and thus money to spend lobbying Congre$$ to get its goodies. The general public, has little incentive to lobby against the waste. And even those laws that must have periodic re-authorization, ARE typically re-authorized. Even if they’re failures. Remember No Child Left Behind?

I disagree about farm bills, though, in that the markets should be allowed to self-adjust: when populations migrated to the cities, without subsidies, prices would naturally rise and with them wages, due to scarcity. I’d rather let prices send market signals than governments. There are certainly many factors in grain prices, including droughts, recessions, and ever increasing yields and mechanization.

Of course alimony/allhismoney made a lot more sense when women couldn’t support themselves, there was a great deal more labor involved in housework due to lack of appliances, pre-prepared meals, etc. Personally, I favor the State staying completely out of defining marriage and custody, and marriage being comprised of private contracts between individuals. Thus, no lobbying, no special interests, you write it however the hell you want. This is also the position of libertarian feminist Wendy McElroy. At least that way you know the outcome of a split in advance.

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8283]

FrankOne wrote:

As for equality of OUTCOME, I’m AGAINST that.

I agree. I wouldn’t expect anyone to give me something I don’t deserve or give me money out of pity. I know there’s no reward for being lazy , and I’m willing to work my way out of poverty. To me, it’s okay if other people have more material wealth than I do (if they worked for it and invested their savings wisely) as long as I’m able to get a job and keep the money I earn. I also realize that some people are more talented than I am and are willing to work harder to get what they want. That’s life.

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[Author]

Posts