This subject is a little bit aside from an MR point of view, and yet I believe it is one of the fundamental challenges of the men's rights movement. It is the distinction between equal opportunity and equal outcome.

The challenge that this topic poses is in part that it is not just a problem with feminism but also a problem with several political ideologies. I recall a conversation I had with a friend several years ago, at the time I wasn't even aware of mens rights, so the context of the conversation was completely political. We were discussing socialism I believe, I am very much opposed to socialism on very many points. One of those points is equal opportunity vs equal outcome. My friend asked me, something along the lines of in capitalism there is no equal opportunity because some people are poor, and some are wealthy, implying that the fact that not everyone is wealthy is a sign of lack of equal opportunity not lack of equal outcome.

The problem of course is that he was missing the most important point of equal opportunity. In equal opportunity, opportunity is the more important word. It means if we were to work for it, we all have the same abilities regardless of race, sex or religion.

Under equal opportunity not all of us will become successful. I my family I have watched both, my grand father for example was a poor immigrant from the check republic, or whatever it was called about 80 years ago. He worked hard and smart and died comfortably middle class the owner of two properties, one home one rental, and the father of two daughters of which my mother was one. Likewise my uncle's father the tiering of his own job opened a company taking a mighty risk and now his family is close to upper class.

Despite these examples I also have my own family who did quite the opposite after starting out wealthy by both having relatively high paying jobs my parents ended up squandering what they had made through poor financial practices and are now divorced, and relatively broke neither my mother of or father have any real wealth to speak of indeed there have been times in the past few years when they had to make hard choice between paying bills to keep the lights on and having food to eat.

The thing is that this is what equal opportunity means. It means that each individual or family is given the ability to do as much as they wish but that they might fail. In equal opportunity at the end of each generation there will be some winners and some losers because some people will be better and smarter in some ways while others won't.

That's in part the challenge of equal opportunity, there is not guarantee of equal outcome. In fact as I explained to my friend some years ago the only way to get equal outcome is not by raising everyone up, but knocking everyone down.

How does this relate to feminism? It relates to feminism because feminism is the pinnacle of belief in equal outcome not equal opportunity. This is why women choosing to work fewer hours and not make as much as seen as women's oppression not the opposite like it is. Equal opportunity means those few (it would be few if we took away all the propaganda) women that do want and need to work would have no obstacle in that way. But that those women who chose a more traditional path would also be free in their choices. Equal opportunity you see means not necessarily caring what the outcome of any one generation is. Because in the end people in an absolutist sense are not equal. Some are taller, some are smaller. Some excel in one area where others excel in other areas. Some women want families some don't. Some men what a traditional wife, while others don't. Equal opportunity means each of those individuals are free to pursue what they want and in the end their outcome won't be equal, but hopefully most of them will be able to live a satisfying life!

This is a fundamental difference between feminism and men's rights. If MR is to succeed then we must never forget this distinction. If we do, then we will be incapable of making any progress.