The Trojan Horse, "Equality"

[Anonymous 6]

The one word that has been used more than any other to destroy Western society is “equality.” Specifically how it is used by feminists. As with many terms, “equality” is an abstract term. It can and does many things and much of that meaning hinges on context.

One wouldn’t protest that a Ferrari engine is not equal to a Ford Fiesta engine. That would be crazy right? But that’s what feminists do with humans. Humans are all born with different capabilities and talents. Yet the feminists want equality of OUTCOMES not opportunity. Remember the cars that I mentioned? Feminists due the equivalent of saying that the Ford Fiesta should have the Same results as that Ferrari. Why? They’re both cars, why should one have an advantage?

Once the feminists get their foot in the door with equality, it then becomes a female supremacist movement. Equality is used as a pretext to set policy in favor of females in all on their own flawed justification and false evidence. It’s best to just say no in the first place.

Plus who defines equality? Feminists define the word, set themselves up as the final arbiter of the term, call you names if you don’t agree with their standard, and then seek to destroy you in a legal setting or elsewhere when and if you maintain your stance. That’s called a bully and isn’t equal at all! Oh wait I wasn’t living up to their stands!

Just my 2 cents here guys. Perhaps I’m right, wrong, or somewhere in between.

[MarketWatcherParticipant]

But I can be anything I want to be right?

No. We are not all equal.

I would not punch Mike Tyson and then bitch about equality while picking up my teeth.

Good topic.

[Anonymous 6]

MarketWatcher wrote:

But I can be anything I want to be right?

No. We are not all equal.

I would not punch Mike Tyson and then bitch about equality while picking up my teeth.

Good topic.

I can’t get pregnant, I’ve read where feminists point out that fact to justify the need for more encompassing health insurance plans for women. I point out that that would be unequal coverage. But, but, but equality!

[MACHOParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Just my 2 cents here guys. Perhaps I’m right,

Bullseye !

You must own a better Crystal ball than I

[GregB0Participant]

Fantastic Post Travis and a timely discussion.

Yes, we always have been …

Anonymous wrote:

Humans are all born with different capabilities and talents.

and will always continue to be. These capabilities combined with Knowledge Skills and Abilities determine our overall effectiveness in life.

Such factors as analytical and communicative skills, leadership, maturity, problem solving, and many others are all extensions that are built and layered upon basic physical/mental competencies.

Anonymous wrote:

equality” is an abstract term. It can and does many things and much of that meaning hinges on context.

Context is the key, looking at the meaning literally will assure that results/conclusions are flawed and biased from the start.

MarketWatcher wrote:

But I can be anything I want to be right?

No. You can be a living human but in many situations, neither a effective nor efficient human. Anyone can be a serf but very few can be landed gentry.

​"​My father didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it.​" - Clarence Buddinton Kelland

[GregB0Participant]

Anonymous wrote:

I point out that that would be unequal coverage

Men will then need medical coverage for insufficient testosterone and sperm counts. Can’t impregnate other wise, assuming one is trying of course!

​"​My father didn't tell me how to live; he lived, and let me watch him do it.​" - Clarence Buddinton Kelland

[Anonymous 1]

Excellent post

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

Honestly Travis you hit upon an important point equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity. The problem with the former is that it requires constant interference by the state because you cannot force self-interested, autonomous humans not to reward those who have great talent.

This is what feminists count on and why the deep state is in bed with feminists, because as long as there is this impossible outcome to be achieved it will always create a big government to redistribute according to an equal outcome. It will always require the government to tax or penalise the talented so that the less talented can receive their due.

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in a good philosophical text on this very subject read:

“Anarchy, State and Utopia” by Robert Nozick. It is essentially a political text that explains why equality of outcome is inherently unjust.

[ZarathustraParticipant 2246]

Probably no one cares but here is Nozick’s argument against redistributive justice (equality of outcomes)

Distributive justice[edit]

Nozick’s famous Wilt Chamberlain argument is an attempt to show that patterned principles of just distribution are incompatible with liberty. He asks us to assume that the original distribution in society, D1, is ordered by our choice of patterned principle, for instance Rawls’s Difference Principle. Wilt Chamberlain is an extremely popular basketball player in this society, and Nozick further assumes 1 million people are willing to freely give Chamberlain 25 cents each to watch him play basketball over the course of a season (we assume no other transactions occur). Chamberlain now has $250,000, a much larger sum than any of the other people in the society. This new distribution in society, call it D2, obviously is no longer ordered by our favored pattern that ordered D1. However Nozick argues that D2 is just. For if each agent freely exchanges some of his D1 share with the basketball player and D1 was a just distribution (we know D1 was just, because it was ordered according to the favored patterned principle of distribution), how can D2 fail to be a just distribution? Thus Nozick argues that what the Wilt Chamberlain example shows is that no patterned principle of just distribution will be compatible with liberty. In order to preserve the pattern, which arranged D1, the state will have to continually interfere with people’s ability to freely exchange their D1 shares, for any exchange of D1 shares explicitly involves violating the pattern that originally ordered it.

Nozick analogizes taxation with forced labor, asking the reader to imagine a man who works longer to gain income to buy a movie ticket and a man who spends his extra time on leisure (for instance, watching the sunset). What, Nozick asks, is the difference between seizing the second man’s leisure (which would be forced labor) and seizing the first man’s goods? “Perhaps there is no difference in principle,” Nozick concludes, and notes that the argument could be extended to taxation on other sources besides labor. “End-state and most patterned principles of distributive justice institute (partial) ownership by others of people and their actions and labor. These principles involve a shift from the classical liberals’ notion of self ownership to a notion of (partial) property rights in other people.”[77]

Nozick then briefly considers Locke’s theory of acquisition. After considering some preliminary objections, he “adds an additional bit of complexity” to the structure of the entitlement theory by refining Locke’s proviso that “enough and as good” must be left in common for others by one’s taking property in an unowned object. Nozick favors a “Lockean” proviso that forbids appropriation when the position of others is thereby worsened. For instance, appropriating the only water hole in a desert and charging monopoly prices would not be legitimate. But in line with his endorsement of the historical principle, this argument does not apply to the medical researcher who discovers a cure for a disease and sells for whatever price he will. Nor does Nozick provide any means or theory whereby abuses of appropriation—acquisition of property when there is not enough and as good in common for

[AttonParticipant]

Equality is used as a pretext to set policy in favor of females in all on their own flawed justification and false evidence

The pass 100 years of feminism get the rights of men, but avoid all associated responsibilities. Suffrage without the draft, divorce law ect.

Plus who defines equality? Feminists define the word, set themselves up as the final arbiter of the term, call you names if you don’t agree with their standard, and then seek to destroy you in a legal setting or elsewhere when and if you maintain your stance.

That’s what we call preference nullification.

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

[AwakenedParticipant 35204]

The sexes are not supposed to be “equal” but complimentary.

Thanks to Feminism, NEITHER IS POSSIBLE.

In a World of Justin Beibers Be a Johnny Cash

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

Wrong, equality as principle is neutral, is not bad nor good.
What they did is VERY different: they asked for equality in SOME specific fields benefitting women who were behind men, while not addressing and even reinforcing women’s advantage in other fields.

Example:
Feminists never asked for equality to men regarding rape.
What is “equality” regarding rape?
Women being equal to men regarding rape?
Really?
So women should be glad if they are forced to have sex with three members of the opposite sex? Because, you know, that’s how it works female rape on men: men have been lucky…
No, feminists asked for inequality, they practically stated: “men love being raped by women, but we women are different, we don’t like being raped by men, so things shouldn’t be equal”

Another example: DV shelters.
Feminists opened DV shelters excluding male victims: that isn’t about equality, that was about pushing for inequality. The old patriarchy didn’t care about DV victims of both sexes, it was harsh but it was equality, equal treatment for both sexes.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[Anonymous 12]

The second Equality is mention it is almost contradicted straight away. “Women are equal to men. Women can’t play football as fast paced as men because women aren’t as strong” I actually read that comment in a newspaper.

If 2 people are drunk and have sex, only the man can be charged with rape later. Despite the fact both are drunk. If 2 underage people have sex, only the boy can be charged with rape. It goes on and on.

So women aren’t equal to men then.

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

if there is something positive that women want from men, they demand equality (of outcome). If there is something negative that women want to be protected from (military combat), they demand chivalry. To me, it seems that what they really want is adult power and childhood protection… and for men to provide them with both, with zero expectation of any reciprocity.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[Anonymous 42]

BrainPilot wrote:

if there is something positive that women want from men, they demand equality (of outcome). If there is something negative that women want to be protected from (military combat), they demand chivalry. To me, it seems that what they really want is adult power and childhood protection… and for men to provide them with both, with zero expectation of any reciprocity.

F~~~ing poetry! +1!

[Anonymous 3]

I keep reminding a phrase from an old E.E.Doc. Smith book: “human thinking is considered a disease in some parts of the galaxy…”

I would put “equality” in the bucket of the arguments people use to get what they want. These arguments have NO VALUE for the understanding of the real world impact of any change.

The technological society and our energy surplus allows for very unproductive and illogical ideas to thrive. Deceiving people will even say that these ideas are THE REASON for this success, and not the product of this success.

People are insulated from the real outcome of their dumb ideas. They only need to convince others of that those dumb ideas are somehow good.

And convincing people is what women do.

Meanwhile, in the real world, I was called to save a mess created by two inept women doing a job that they are not fully capable of doing. In the real world, the duality of standards allows these women to be considered “equal” without being equally proficient, knowledgeable, responsible and capable to deal with the stress. Let us just say that people could die.
yet they are “equal” in terms of social acceptance and economic retribution. They are above equal in terms of access, because there are “quotas” and “social responsibilities” that gives them unfair advantages.
Yet, when s~~~ hits the fan they always call a man to fix the mess.

Its like kids playing make-believe. And grown men are forced to play along. Unfortunately/fortunately most men are not fully grown, so they can easily participate in this game without losing their mind.

[hdvrodParticipant 1109]

BrainPilot wrote:

it seems that what they really want is adult power and childhood protection… and for men to provide them with both, with zero expectation of any reciprocity.

HOLY S~~~!!!
That’s it right there!

Anyway communication, real open communication, is not wanted or even required in a relationship. Women cannot handle fully open and honest communication, plus most perceive it as a weakness on the part of a man. All that is required is catering to her whims, and even then nothing is certain. There is no way to be sure of having a successful relationshit with a woman. MGTaoist

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

BrainPilot wrote:

if there is something positive that women want from men, they demand equality (of outcome). If there is something negative that women want to be protected from (military combat), they demand chivalry. To me, it seems that what they really want is adult power and childhood protection… and for men to provide them with both, with zero expectation of any reciprocity.

Bingo, that’s why attacking equality between the sexes is stupid, because it’s not what they ask for.
With absolute equality between sexes men would be better off than today: the situation we actually have today is exactly what you just described and it’s the result of a sort of compromise between feminists and tradcons: rights for women and duties for men.

I repeat: equality between sexes men would be better off than today, and I add that I have not even an hint if equality between sexes would be better than the old patriarchy – I didn’t saw those times, furthermore those conditions that made it possible doesn’t exist anymore so it’s probably silly to compare the two.

To better explain, a transport comparison:
Today: men must buy and drive their cars, women can have cars and even drivers for free.
Equality between sexes: everybody must buy and drive their cars, but the prices drop because there isn’t free stuff for women anymore.
Patriarchy: every man can buy and ride an horse, women are discouraged to ride horses and that’s meant for their protection.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[Author]

Posts