Feminism is actually aiming for equality

This will be a long post, sorry in advance.

I used to think that feminism's equality is a buffet where they pick and choose what they want to equalize, while leaving out topics where inequality actually benefit them, that's why it would make me mad when they failed to see the hypocrisy and double standard, but now i don't think that's the case, that why they dont' see it as hypocrisy; if you actually go read the responses of feminist subs on said topic, they actually want equality.

I started to reaaaaly trying to put myself in their shoes, and while i can't pretend to understand at 100% how women feel, i can at least see the reasoning behind their way of thinking, and when you do that, you realize that they are actually truthfull basically all the time, they actually want equality.

But there is a catch.

Because when you come from a status quo of gender roles, on almost every given subject there are 2 ways to actually achive equality: it's not that they leave outside some topic from equality (sometimes they do), the real problem instead is that the buffet is actually about the "better equality" for them. Let me give you some examples regarding some of the main topic both feminist and mra can argue about.

1. Selective Service

• you could have both men and women having to sign up for selective service;
• you could have no one signing for selective service.

The first option doesn't actually benefit men, but at least doesn't hurt them like it does for women, for obvious reason. The second one, while actually being good for both, it would only work in lalala land, because if you have a policy like this, where no one is forced to defend the country in time of needs, you are fucked when those times comes unless all the nations in the world also subscribe to that, which would never happen. Imagine another world in which Ukraine had a policy like this when Russia came at their front door, and tell me what would happen.

So even if it's not pratical in any way shape or form, feminist can actually naively say that they want equality regarding the selective service, and have a clean conscience about actually aiming for equality.

2. Promiscuity/Body count

Men value purity basically above all else, a lot more then women do. Women still care, but they also care about experience, and if you are a virgin you can't have experience. Despite what some men might think, there aren't a lot of women that would be okay with a partner that had a 100+ body count, but what they don't tell it's that there are even less women that would be okay with a partner that had 0 previous partners.

the first thing that come to their mind is not that you were able to restrain yourself willingly, no, is that you have tried several times and failed, so there must be something wrong with you, incel. if they don't think that, at the very best they think you couldn't be able to satisfy them, and they would probably... be right.

let's be honest, a virgin woman with literally 0 sex experience could lay down star fish mode, and most men, even if not virgin themselves, could get an orgasm. Now reverse the situation, a virgin man could manage to make a women come the first time he does it like 1% of the time? if you guys manage that on your first try, well done, i didn't.

This topic could be expanded a lot more, but in general we could state that : Men prefer a body count closer to 0, while women prefer a body county that is not too low, certainly not 0, but neither too high, because then they can't be sure that you would be faithfull in the case we start a family. fair.

Now again, you can reach equality in 2 ways:

• Both men and women start being less promiscuous; (basically religion)
• Both men and women start being more promiscuos; (sexual liberation)

Option one of course benefit men, it's more likely for a men to be virgin today than for a women, and the same goes for low body counts, add that being less promiscuous entail that all people are less experienced, expecially men because they need experience more to learn to properly satisfy a women, it obvious that feminist wouldn't subscribe to that, at the end of the day that's basically the way religious people act, and we know that feminism and religion are not compatible at their very core.

If we talk about the second option instead, it's perfect for women : they can start to act like they think men do, fuck this, fuck that, fuck everything that moves, and get praise like a chad would for that, instead of the societal shame you would get with the first option.

They conveniently leave behind that the reason why chad get praised, while a women get shamed, it's because it's harder for men to actually pull that off (1/3 men under 30 age are virgin or sexless in the last year) and in every single human endeavour, both men and women are praised for what is hard to pull off, not for what it's easy. While i think that 80% women if they wanted to could reach a 50+ body count, only 20% of men could manage to do the same, but they think this would apply and be beneficial to 100% of men.

Again, they are truthfull to themselves when they argue they want equality with sexual liberation, they just want to be equal to the top 20% men that is able to fuck around, they don't want to be equal to the avarage MCdonald guys who is sexless since X years, but nonetheless, they can sleep well knowing they actually aimed for equality once again.

3. Dating scene

In the past, the men would pay for the date mostly because women didn't work, so it would only be logical that the party that actually have the resources to do it would pay, but now women can work and they can acquire money, so that reason is not valid anymore. This time, there aren't 2 ways to equalize the situation, there is only one.

• Both men and women pay for 50% of the date. (and the organization would fall on both of them, not with the men thinking for everything and the women just enjoying the date, but let's leave this aside)

this of course would benefit only men, for the longest time the burden of perfomance was only on them, and now they can share it, while women would have to take care of something they never had to before: so this time they needed a different approach.

The general rule in the past wasn't men have to pay just because, the rule was men work, make money, women deal with house and children, therefore men would be the one paying for date, because women didn't have the money for it in any case.

Somehow, somewhere along the time when women got the ability to work and make money for themselves, the rules also quietly changed : It's not man pay because they have money to do it, because now that would apply for them too. No, the new rule became

• Whoever invite pays 100%.

This would be actually equal in a world where women also make the first move, but for what we have seen with bumble, they had to remove the feature that made women write first (so they could be more safe) because apparently, safety is not as important as the feeling of being pursued and feeling valuable, but this can be left aside.

Once again, they manage to make a situation equal, even if is not actually equal for the word we live in today, at least in theory it is, so again they can claim there is no fallacy in their search for equality.

4. Home gender roles

This one actually made me laugh thinking about it, and it's the primary reason why i started thinking that they are actually in good faith with their argument and they really think that they want true equality.

• Each party take 100% responsability on any given task they think they are better suited to do, while doing 0% on others they think are not suited to do;
• Each party has a voice in every task, and they usually do 50% share of it, sometimes it's 60-70 somewhere and 30-40 in other area, but in principle the burden is equally split.

The first option, that worked for most human history, is resulted in the usual situation of men taking care of work and women taking care of home and babies, which both required sacrifice that i would say were roughly equal, at least in the past.

Now while this is not the norm anymore because most people can't actually afford it, for the couple who still follow traditional gender role, the women benefict from it a lot more then in the past, while it's the opposite for men, it became even harder since you have to make more then the avarage salary to afford a family with 1 single income now, while that wasn't the case in the past, while for the female gender role:

1. While in the past you needed to go and get the water for cooking and cleaning, now you can just have it at home;
2. While in the past you needed to clean every single clothes with your hands, now you can just throw it the washing machine and wait;
3. While in the past you needed to clean every single plate and glass with your hands, now you can just throw it the dishwasher and wait;
4. While in the past you actually needed to be there for your children, now you can just be a "good parent" by giving him a tablet while you watch netflix waiting for the laundry to be done by the machine next to you.
5. While in the past you needed to be more avaible, now you can just say you have an headache and it will work.

Basically every single task given to women has been made easier to accomplish thank to scientific progress, and yet at the peak of the easiest life possible, they went:

No we want equality! i want to work 40 h/w for 30+ years of my life, and in exchange, you will share the immense burden i have, so you will see how hard i have it! you will have to put those dishes and clothes in that machine that does the work for you for 4 days a week, let's see how you like it! We won't bend to the patriarchy!

Like this literally made me laugh. Joke aside, i get that there is a component of being fulfilled while working and accomplishing stuff, but you can get that outside of work, you can get it from anything, like learning to paint, it doesn't have to be by slaving yourself to comporation like men had to do, because for most of us it's not fun, at least for me it isn't.

If someone offered me the deal of women gender role today, i would take it immediately, and instead of going for a raise trying to outdo everyone else around me at work, i could just build stuff like a dog house, i would read and and most of all, i would be gratefull.

The only reason i could think for this fuck up on their part is that again, when they think about men working, they think about the top men making it in important position, they don't think about the avarage men with no substential carrier change over the coourse of 30-40 years.

But i think this prove that they are actually in good faith, because to remain coherent, they are even willing to give up on the best deal ever to have it like men have, they actually have to believe that equality is the better option for them. Well, either that or they didn't pictures themselves at 60 still going to work, who knows.

TLDR- To sum it up, of course there are cases of just plain sexism and misandry rhetoric from extreme feminist, like the man or bear stuff, but i actually don't care about that shit, because i truly hope and believe that everyone, men and women with more than 1 digits IQ understand how it's a just a stupid gotcha argument.

The true insidius part of feminism is this "kinda reasonable but actually not sounded argument if you really look into it" type that most of the moderate feminist agree with on most topics, and this are the people we could talk with, but when you look at their world view, it does make sense that they don't want to discuss with us and just see us as women hating: In a way, what they are aiming for is equality, and they think they are doing this for both of us, but they are actually looking at it only from their point of view, and assume it's the same for men when in reality it's not.