~ archived since 2018 ~

Something I'd like MR to think about

Demonspawn · 2013-05-30T13:35:09+00:00

Egalitarianism is, by definition, contradictory to female supremacy. Yeah... just like feminism, right?...

Demonspawn

May 30, 2013

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

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	Something I'd like MR to think about
Author	Demonspawn
Upvotes	0
Comments	19
Date	May 30, 2013 1:35 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1fc2ky/something_id_like_mr_to_think_about/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/something-id-like-mr-to-think-about.1172540 https://theredarchive.com/post/1172540

Comments

[–]OuiCrudites 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn[S] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

You need to be more careful about your use of terminology.

You reject the egalitarianism because in your interpretation it ignores human biodiversity thus rendering it no different from feminism.

Fine.

But your interpretation of egalitarianism is in error. Yes, egalitarianism ignores human biodiversity; it ignores it because biodiversity is irrelevant to de jure equality. Egalitarianism means doing a lot of things feminism does not want to do, like throwing down the duluth model and abolishing alimony.

I think the root of the problem is that your thinking conflates equal with "equal outcome" like feminists do, when in reality it's about equal liberty and equal access to public services.

If you think that assuring equal liberty and equal access is inequal because genders stand to gain disproportionately, fine, you can think that.

But your thinking will be in the minority.

Egalitarianism means stripping away all distinctions from people and treating them as nothing more and nothing less, then citizen. Whether person a stands to gain or lose from being treated as citizen compared to being treated as person a is immaterial. If you think it's important, fine.

But at some point there has to be a happy medium and for a lot of people, MRAs included, egalitarianism is an ACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE.

Women stand to gain from being treated as citizen if we decide that citizen deserves certain protections for public health and security. But woman as citizen is also held to a higher standard of civic responsibility then woman is today under feminist policy.

You may think this is a bad trade.

A lot of MRAs are willing to accept the unequal benefit reality of social welfare equality if it is accompanied by holding women to the same legal standard as men.

[–]Demonspawn[S] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

And your crux, the thing you NEED to have happen for egalitarianism to be feasible, is currently impossible.

Prove that it is impossible.

Here's where you're getting confused. You think that egalitarianism means something beyond just de jure equality, and that because we support egalitarianism despite your view that de jure equality cannot be achieved, that this means we're supporting feminism. You think that some of egalitarianism is pro-feminist (some of does look that way yes), and that because the parts that are anti-feminist are in your view impossible, the pro parts are inadvertently helping.

De jure equality is not merely one step in ACHIEVING egalitarian society.

DE JURE EQUALITY IS THE END GOAL OF EGALITARIANISM.

Period.

Whether it's achievable or not is irrelevant.

We're not all going to dump principles and hate everything that feminism agrees with simply to disagree. Feminism isn't 100% wrong. It's like 60% wrong. But we're not going to take arbitrarily contrary positions on the 40% we can agree with.

"You're right, I didn't mean to say the Enterprise should be hauling garbage. I meant to say that it should be hauled away AS GARBAGE."

[–]Demonspawn[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrSy -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link