Welcome to True Equality

Until now I’ve called my channel a susurration of a shibboleth. It was about standing out from the norm. That particular message has had its time and I think there is a new message I want to convey. My thinking over the past months has definitely been tending towards on thing and that is the continuous difference between those in the men’s movement and feminists in our ideas about equality.

This was pretty much encapsulated in my last video. Which, really, should have been the first video I made for youtube. It would be right at the top of my MRA 101 list because it encapsulates why us strange creatures called Men’s Rights Activists do not call ourselves feminists. I mentioned the differing idea of equality which is given by the following blurb:

What is equality? We in the men’s rights movement believe in equality of opportunity, that as long as the playing field is level then the outcomes should not matter. The feminists tend to believe that equality of outcome is what matters, that the columns under men and women must match for there to be no more sexism. So what really matters at the end of the day is what you are comparing. Rights or outcomes? This is the foundation of our debate.

Now, certain problems have nothing to do with this, I acknowledge that. However, this fundamental disagreement is present in so many arguments between men’s rights activists and feminists. Here are three examples of what I’m talking about when I talk about the feminists view of equality of outcomes.

1. Feminists use the gap between men and women in pay to support the idea of the supposed oppression of women.
2. Feminists use the gap between men and women in collegiate sports enrolment to support the quota-based law called title nine.
3. And, feminists use the differences between men and women in many professions. To make a case for the forceful insertion of women into those professions. A prime example of this is the FASCIST law passed in Norway where companies are forced to have 40% of their board of directors be female.

What does it take? What does it take to believe in these foolish ideas, and they are foolish. They hurt men, and they infantilise women. How can the neurons in the brain misfire to such a way so that people can support such idiocy, not only in practice. But to the extent that it gets encapsulated into law?

It takes the belief that men.. and women.. are basically the same. That apart from their physical appearance that they think in the same basic ways. This is foolish and any remotely normal person who has usual interactions with men and women will notice that we are fundamentally different.

Modern feminist may say. Oh no, I don’t support that idea. Well no shit. It’s untenable. But back in the heyday of feminist thought they tried this. They stigmatized raising boy children differently to girl children, they said that if you give the girl a truck and give the boy a Barbie then you can switch the roles. Nothing demonstrates the fallacy of this better than the case of David Reimer who was tortured in the name of feminist theory. His story will be made in a separate video. But needless to say that the theorising of the feminist fell down when empirically tested. It also falls down in the light of common sense.

I hope by now, that I have demonstrated fallacy inerrant in the idea that men and women are the same. We are not. So in this light the feminist ideal of equality is flawed. But what about my own ideal? Why do I think my own standards of equality are sufficiently better in order to make the claim that they represent “true equality”?

My system says, what you want to achieve as a society is equality of opportunity. This means that you do not deny anyone the opportunity to apply for a job, and a job is defined by a set of criteria. You want to become a fire fighter or a soldier? Great then there are a number of pre-requisites that you’ll need in order to do that job. You’ll need a certain level of fitness and you’ll need to be able to lift a certain amount of weight. No one is intrinsically blocked from applying but due to the requirements of the job you will see a number of patterns in who makes it in. Be it more men or more women, depending upon the particular job of course.

Now take the feminist model. I as a man am not fit enough to become a fire fighter but a women who is weaker than I might get in on the back of positive discrimination. What does this achieve? Well first of all it fills a slot with someone who is not able to do the job, it puts pressure on the other people in that profession to pick up the slack after her. Nothing demonstrates that point more than this article from Fred Reed about women in the military.

Fred--Your article "The Realities of Women in Combat" really struck a chord with my experience in the Air Force. I was a shop chief with the 28th Avionics Maintenance Squadron in the 1980s. There were two women assigned to my shop. One was really sharp at her job, but she couldn't change an RT-274/APN-81 without male assistance. The other couldn't even carry her own tool box to the flight line!

Supposedly, we supervisors were assured by the brass, these women were screened before being allowed into avionics maintenance by having to pass weightlifting standards. Yeah, right. They had to be able to lift 50 pounds. An RT-274 weighed in at 125 pounds plus. I don't know what the problem was with the woman who couldn't carry her own tool box. But I couldn't get rid of her due to pressure from the brass. So, I put her in a weight training program at the base gym. Until her honorable discharge and a pat on the back for a job well done, she never carried her own tools. She, therefore, was never able to pull weekend duty alone; there had to be a male assigned as well to carry her end of the job as well as his own.

Saving lives, fighting fires, fighting wars and protecting citizens are not areas where I want social experiments run. When you are being mugged, or your house is burning down you want the best person to save your life. It is beyond me why we give feminists credence in their clearly bad and erroneous ideas.

I also want to give a shout-out to my new blog I am creating. In the theme of this video I have called it true-equality and you can find it at true hyphen equality dot net. I have improved it so that I can more easily add blog posts and I will try to add a new post every day.