Why Gender Equality Can Never Happen

[ScrotimereParticipant 14]

Let me predicate this post with an excerpt from Nietzsche:  “‘Lo, teaching everyone to read ruined writing and even thought.”

Pretty simple here to debase the entire feminist movement toward so called “gender equality” and make them look like a herd of butt-hurt heifers at the same time.  Lets look at the definition of the word – gender.

<span class=”ssens”>a.)  A subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics.
</span>

b.)  T<span class=”ssens”>he behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex. </span>

You cannot find a definition that doesn’t explicitly imply a difference.  What you have here is a classic 1984 Double-think.  The feminists that tote for “gender equality” are saying (more or less) “We are different and if we can’t get up the hill to where you are you MUST come down to us.”

Bogus, bush-league, non-sense.  There is nothing equal between men and women, physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally, genetically; in fact, I feel hard pressed to even find anything that is the same.  If they had any sense at all they would realize that the true inequalities are found in the realm of big business versus the lay man.  I could understand and even get behind a social equality movement or a civil or economic equality movement but, you’ll forgive me if I  don’t swim into the whirlpool of illiteracy that is “gender equality.”

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

There’s a huge difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes.  I favor equality of opportunity — a woman can become a machinist, a fireman, etc IF she can pass the tests and/or demonstrate the skills to do the work.  I don’t see a problem if one gender or race predominates in a given sector — most teachers are women, as are most nurses, most coal miners are men, almost all mechanics are men.  That said, I do not believe the State should be involved — I don’t believe individuals should be able to sue for age/racial/gender discrimination.  If I want to run a racist or sexist organization that only promotes the welfare of one group, I should be able to do so (interestingly, the NAACP and NOW are allowed under present laws).  I do NOT agree with lowering standards for women so they are ‘equally represented’ in a given profession.  If we’re going to do that why don’t we ‘equalize’ the number of hours worked outside the home by men and women?

Similarly, we all deserve equal protection under the law.  If a woman becomes pregnant, and the man doesn’t want the child, why should he have to pay child support?  I can see why, if a man signs he doesn’t want the child, it might make sense that he should have to pay for half the cost of an abortion.  This is equal protection under the law — which we DON’T have in family law.  Why should a woman get half the assets if she didn’t earn half the income?

[uchibenkeiParticipant 7965]

Everyone’s idea of equality and fairness is different.  If a consensus is needed, forget about it.

I bathe in the tears of single moms.

[Binary LogicParticipant 2351]

FrankOne wrote:

There’s a huge difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. I favor equality of opportunity — a woman can become a machinist, a fireman, etc IF she can pass the tests and/or demonstrate the skills to do the work.

 

Prime example, Just look at the first 16 female candidates to ever attempt the Army Infantry Ranger Course. Major fail. Not one of them made it to the final cut…

First 8 females of Army Infantry Ranger School FAIL

Funny, isn't it? How women thrive on a mans time, attention and resources, while simultaneously telling him he isn't enough...

[ScrotimereParticipant 14]

@frank, yeah, equal opportunity is probably the best way.  I posted an interesting idea on some new marriage laws that would essentially do away with all of the existing family law and replace is with a simple IF you have kids weather or not you wanted kids or are married both parents are held responsible for 50% of the time and money of child rearing. If you wanted to work with the person and start a family.  The idea is to create a separate bank account for the family and it is treated more or less as a corporation.  The more you put into it, the more “shares” you own and when/if divorce happens the assets are split according to how much “stock” you own in the family.  That seems like a pretty equal opportunity to me and much better suited to protect the innocent from the gold digger.

@uchibenkei  Yes you are right,  it’s as Modest Mouse so eloquently explained, “Language is the liquid that we’re all dissolved in.  Great for solving problems, after it creates a problem.”

 

[AttonParticipant]

Perfection is impossible so true equality is fundamentally impossible. Its a bad model and none should ever use it.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[ScrotimereParticipant 14]

Atton wrote:

Perfection is impossible so true equality is fundamentally impossible.

Yeah all we can strive for is an equitable solution.  Give everyone access to the best education our nation can provide, keep everyone as healthy as our fellow man can be.  If everyone is smart and healthy then the rest should fall into place.

[AttonParticipant]

Scrotimere wrote:

Atton wrote:

Perfection is impossible so true equality is fundamentally impossible.

Yeah all we can strive for is an equitable solution. Give everyone access to the best education our nation can provide, keep everyone as healthy as our fellow man can be. If everyone is smart and healthy then the rest should fall into place.

That is indeed possible and what we need more of. But an end condition must be defined.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[conscientiaParticipant 6]

Of course there is no equality. There couldn’t be. And there shouldn’t be. In order for equality to exist, there should be the condition to similarity. Either men becoming more feminine or females becoming more masculine. Only then almost any condition of equality can be met. Which can’t be said for fairness. Fairness can exist without equality, because fairness, when in comes to genders should respect advantages and disadvantages of both sides and balance them out to the point of equal struggles and gains respecting and taking in consideration strengths and weaknesses of both genders. Equality demands, that everybody is treated EQUALLY ignoring fairness and ignoring differences, thus closer to word similarly, which requires for women to be able to pick up a male prostitute and males to have periods and PMS(blunt examples), which requires elimination of sex difference barrier. While after equality follows fairness, it is unrealistic, because equality between genders can’t exist, since we are mentally contrastingly different. Pursuing equality will require elimination of this difference between sexes and attacking what we are at base, instinctual level. This is impossible and an attempt at redefining the obvious at it’s base.

[Author]

Posts