The problem with MRA is that it’s the other side of the feminist coin. Guys like Warren Farrell and Paul Elam believe fervently in gender equality, even though it never has and never will exist, but they differ from feminists in the details.
I compare it to Trotskyites vs. Stalinists.
The solution isn’t to double down on gender equality, but to reject the concept altogether. I advocate replacing the word “equality” with “balance.” A society in which there is a balance between the masculine and feminine elements is a happy, healthy society. Same goes for a family.
Obviously, one won’t find balance in the individual, but that’s why nature created us man and woman in the first place — so we wouldn’t be merely a mass of individuals but complementary parts of the species.
This gender equality nonsense is the natural consequence of centuries of progressive individualism, which results in a bland, atomized society in which there are no natural divisions or communities. It turns out that Enlightenment thinking logically progresses to this kind of dystopia, so MRAs who refuse to abandon it will lead us to exactly the same place the feminists would.
23 comments
"which results in a bland, atomized society in which there are no natural divisions or communities"
I've noticed that this line of thought, that we're in some horrible age without overarching social bonds, is quite common among alt-right/traditionalist/neoreactionary types. They seem to be aiming for some "spiritual" social goal of one kind or another, with little regard for the concrete consequences of such a social force; this is probably why Evola appeals to so many of them, because of his "economics don't real" views.
Say what you will about Wall Street Republicans, I'll take them before culture warriors any day.
P.S. This guy is W.F. Price, for those of you who didn't know. Scroll down the comment section with the Houellebecq-involving quote of his and he states himself as Bill Price.
It sounds like someone has fallen for the false claims of the MRAs. Many of them claim to stand for equality to ensure that women won't achieve equal rights to men, because they are scared of losing power.
It is possible to support equality whilst recognising natural differences between sexes, but the differences you cite are likely to differ from the rest of us. For example, whilst many women would struggle to compete against men in most sport, due to testosterone mostly, there's no reason why they shouldn't be as competent in science. Yet, I suspect that you'd disagree.
William F. Price? Dear god... he's still around and saying things?
Bill, you seem to be advocating some sort of communal state for humanity, and a rejection of the individual. That we should all live in a 'balanced' community, for the communal good.
So... communism, then?
Yeah, I figured that suggestion would send you into a screaming rage. You want a homogenous 'balance' (which, I'm sure, is anything but balanced), yet you call we individualists and our ideal diverse society bland?
You, sir, are an idiot bereft of imagination.
@SpukiKitty
Yes. That is EXACTLY what he is saying. Terrifying, no?
Call me crazy, but I actually like it when conservatives just come right out and say they don't like the Enlightenment.
I like it when they make their intentions known like this, rather than pretending they're about freedom, etc.
I like it when they make clear that what they really want is a world where people exist to serve abstract ideas (community, family, distinctions, etc.) instead of ideas existing to serve people.
When they complain of "atomized individuals" (and this is also a charge I frequently see among the more extreme left-wing groups as well, by the way, but that's another issue), they really mean "flesh-and-blood people who might say no to abusive parents, or take a stand against their communities if their communities are making unjust war on others, etc."
That is, I like when they're at least HONEST enough to admit that what they really want is a world that is entirely without human "agency", where all relationships and roles are "set" and people exist only to fulfill their functions.
The problem with those who don't look after their cars - like their attitudes - is that they ultimately fail. Like a B-GT that is never maintained, it will end up being taken to be left on the scrapheap:
image
MGTOW!
Even owners of Moskvitchs & Zils keep theirs going: due to they being Enlightened .
Gender equality does exist, to different degrees in different countries.
So, it's all about semantics? To most sane people, equality is balance.
Most sane people think the world before the Enlightenment was the dystopia. Billy-boy here apparently like the society of Daesh better...
Complete gender equality will never be a thing.
It's a waste of time, it's stupid, it's unrealistic and even unnecessary, why does it even matter as long as people are free to do what they want? You can have equal rights, NOT equal outcomes because free men and free women will choose different things in life. It would actually be immoral to force them otherwise.
They very fact that we're not bisexuals should give you pause. If men and women are the same then why are most men attracted exclusively to women and vice versa? Tell me that?
@rubber chicken
Even if we take those findings at face value they still show a strong trend of heterosexuality.
Also you really have to define wtf exactly would a "partially gay" man be like. Would he get a 10% boner from other dudes? A quarter boner? A half boner? It's kinda absurd.
You either like men or you don't. If inherent male bodily features turn you off, there's no level of "hot" a guy can reach to seduce you. So that rules out of the possibility the odd guy can turn you on compared to the hundreds of women that do. At the very least he'd need to remove as many male features as possible, which would effectively make him trans. (or you'd have to be really really drunk/desperate not to notice/care if he didn't go all the way)
image
Plenty of gender equality in the factories, shipyards, assembly hangars etc during WWII.
define wtf exactly would a "partially gay" man be like. Would he get a 10% boner from other dudes? A quarter boner? A half boner? It's kinda absurd
Y'know what is absurd?
http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94310&Page=3
Not answering a simple question concerning whether or not something affects you personally with the answer 'It Doesn't'.
Do adult consenting people who happen to be of the same gender having the same legal rights & responsibilities as those of the opposite gender - as well as trans women using women's toilets - affect me personally? It doesn't.
image
image
The only absurd thing here is bigotry resulting in unjustifiable thinking .
a bland, atomized society in which there are no natural divisions or communities I'll tell you this: "natural divisions and communities" exist only as a means of power and control. They're all about persuading you to voluntarily give up your time, resources, in extreme cases your life, for the benefit of the leaders of these "divisions" and "communities". And the best bit is, it's designed to make you reject the very idea of questioning this status quo, because it's "natural".
The sooner you realize this, the sooner you'll recognize both radfems and MRAs for who they truly are: con artists, looking to make a living off of honest women and men by exploiting fear and "natural communities".
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
