~ archived since 2018 ~

True Equality

mrfootballfan55 · 2014-07-03T18:46:03+00:00

Sexism isn't "Us" vs. "Them". It's "Us" vs. "Our Lack of Mutual...

mrfootballfan55

July 3, 2014

10 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	True Equality
Author	mrfootballfan55
Upvotes	10
Comments	20
Date	July 3, 2014 6:46 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/29rgbk/true_equality/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/true-equality.998398 https://theredarchive.com/post/998398

Comments

[–]MagicalPowerfulEvil 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Poperiarchy 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iwasnotshadowbanned 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRSPArchiver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Fender- 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This is the end goal of feminism, not the end goal of an Egalitarian stance.

I didn't say anything about the goal, I talked about the result.

With our modern society, true equality could be possible.

Or it could not be. Why not attempt to figure out IF it is possible before attempting to implement it? Especially when considering oneself an MRA. Especially when attempting equality when it is not possible leads to female supremacy.

Egalitarians are trying to do exactly what you just said: place equal responsibility and rights on everyone, men and women.

Then why do I hear so few egalitarians discuss responsibilities? And even fewer discuss disposability? What is the egalitarian plan to equalize disposability... because without that plan, again, seeking equality will create the end result of female supremacy.

[–]-Fender- 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-Fender- 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]cptwolf 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

What do you mean by responsibilities vs rights?

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I usually argue this when someone says the sky is blue, which is similar to "not green".

There is no inherent color to the sky. Therefore the color depends on what is going on with external light sources, and what's floating in the sky.

You'll find that the sky is green, during some kinds of severe storms. It can also be brown or grey at these times. It is typically blue on a nice summer day. It is red at sunrise and sunset. Some people may also see orange or pink. It is black with white or (generally) off-white dots at night. It is white in a winter blizzard.

I don't think I've seen a yellow or purple sky... yet.

Seen from space, the color of the "sky" (atmosphere) depends on viewing angle. Generally blue, it can also be red if you're at a "sunset" angle. And there can be a lot of green again, if the aurora is in the sky.

As to equality between women, men, and others, I think it is possible. Surely there is a disparity in disposability, and men have borne the brunt of it. The solution isn't, as you suggest, to make women disposable. Rather, a solution is to wake people up to how men have been treated, and to stand fast for (at least) higher wages for work that can get a person (typically a man) killed, as a start.

I don't see any reason why any human being should be regarded as disposable merely for being born. Risk should be compensated. War should be used as a last resort. When people have fallen down into the gutters, we should help them stand up again.

[–]mean0dean0 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NWOslave -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you're referring to the recent video of a drag queen shouting down a group who came to protest an LGBT pride parade with signs telling LGBT people that they were going to hell, I thought her counter-protest was awesome, and they got exactly what they deserved. Words for words. Megaphone for megaphone.

While not sufficient for freedom, equality is necessary for freedom, and for morality.

The posts I've seen in this sub are simply seeking equal treatment for males, whether baby boys, or husbands, or male victims of sex assault, or fathers, or male employees, or male athletes, or male defendants, or male actors, or boyfriends, or voting-age males, etc.

Without equality, these men and boys aren't going to see any improvement. The only alternative to achieving these goals without equality, would appear to be patriarchy, which I don't think most people here would support.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Without equality, these men and boys aren't going to see any improvement.

Seeking equality is going to make the situation for men and boys worse and worse. Because men and women are not and cannot be equal. So equal rights for women, plus less responsibility for women, will have the end result of women being generous to themselves while men have to pay for it.

The only alternative to achieving these goals without equality, would appear to be patriarchy, which I don't think most people here would support.

Patriarchy is the price which must be paid to enjoy the benefits of civilization:

What price are you willing to pay for "equality"? (legal download, book is out of copyright).

"Unwin analyzes 80 primitive cultures and a number of past empires and finds that, without exception, the level of advancement or decline of all cultures is directly tied to the level of regulation of female sexuality. His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s - 900s), and English (1500s - 1900s). In every example, these cultures began to rise when women were required to be virgins at marriage and to be monogamous for life. All of these cultures began to decline when women were given rights, were not required to be virgins at marriage, when divorce was common, and marriage was in decline."

[–]Underfolder 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link