Equality:- A Never-Ending War between Men And Women

The politically-correct aim for 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' is not achievable.

It is absolutely impossible.
It will never be found.
It will never be discovered.
It will never happen.

The search for 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' is fuelling a never-ending war between 'men' and 'women'.

The more aggressive and energetic is this nonsensical search for 'equality' between 'men' and ‘women', the more aggressive and energetic will be the war (i.e. the hostility) between 'men and 'women'.

To try to highlight this, notice that there is no 'equitable' solution even to this very simple question

Question: Should 'women' have more votes than 'men'?

For those who think, yes, (because there are more women voters than men voters) then it follows that they also believe that those in a minority should have less of a say in what affects them.

They believe that the largest group (women) should have the greatest power.

As such, 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' is already lost.

For those who think, No, (because this would be unfair on 'men') then it follows that they also believe that those in the majority should have less of a say in what affects them.

They believe that the individual vote of a woman should be worth less than that of a man.

As such, 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' is already lost.

In other words, there is no solution to this question.

The search for 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' is like a dog chasing its own tail. It will always be out of reach. And the very act of chasing it is costing us a great deal and causing tremendous damage to us.

The solution that we need to seek is not 'equality' - because it will never be found.

The best that can be hoped for is that people are happy with what is happening.

For example, if I had to answer the question, "Should 'women' have more votes than 'men'?" I would say, Yes (because there are more women voters than men voters).

But I would not be saying Yes in order to achieve 'equality'. I would be saying Yes because, currently, it seems to be the better option - for the sake of peace, if nothing else.
And this, in fact, is what all this nonsense about 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' should really boil down to.

If men and women are equally happy with whatever is the issue of concern, then, if you like, some version of 'equality' has been achieved.

But the state of people's happiness actually depends to a very large extent on the propaganda that envelops them.

If the propaganda tells them that they are badly off then their happiness levels will fall and their aggression levels will rise. If the propaganda tells them that they are doing well then their happiness levels will rise and their aggression levels will fall.

 if people want 'men' and 'women' to be happy about each other then they need - amongst other things - to do their best to destroy all those forces that seek 'equality'

And so if people want 'men' and 'women' to be happy about each other then they need - amongst other things - to do their best to destroy all those forces that seek 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' - because these forces will, in practice, forever be creating hostility between 'men' and 'women' while in pursuit of an impossible goal!

Finally, neither men nor women need to be 'equal' to each other in order to be happy with each other.

A few people have talked me concerning the above piece suggesting, for example, that equality can be achieved in, say, matters to do with pay. After all, they argue, is it not 'equality' for men to be paid the same rates as women for doing the same jobs?
Well. The answer is No!

It might be fair. And it might make people happy. But it does not follow that such a thing would be a mark of 'equality'.

Indeed, the more that one drills down in search for 'equality', the more hopeless does the search become.

For example, if men and women are doing the same job for the same number of hours, then a superficial analysis would suggest that they should get paid the same amount.
But, should they?

For example, should a man who has been lawyering or bricklaying for 20 years be paid the same as a woman who has been doing such jobs for only 10 years?
Should a man who can carry two bricks in his wheelbarrow earn the same pay as a woman who can only carry one?

Should a man who can carry two bricks in his wheelbarrow earn the same pay as a woman who can only carry one?
If you answer Yes to either of the above questions, then I would argue that your notion of 'equality' is very strange.

But let us look at a simple job, where skill and expertise are fairly irrelevant to the efficiency with which the job is done - though, quite frankly, there cannot be many jobs like this.
Let's go for dishing out tea in a canteen.

Should men and women get paid the same for dishing out tea in a canteen if they work for the same hours and if they both do the job equally well?
Well, of course, I would say Yes.

But so-called 'equality' fanatics, like the feminists, might well disagree, as they keep drilling down in search for 'inequality'..

They might discover, for example, the following.

1. They might discover that more men than women do this job. And from this they could conclude that 'equality' between men and women has not been achieved.

2. The statistics might show that the women tend to spend more of their money on clothes for the job than do men, and that, therefore, women should be paid more - often by sneaking the money back to them through the tax system.

3. The statistics might show that women take more days off work for childcare reasons or for hormonal problems and so they ought to be compensated in some way for this.

4. The statistics might show that women spend more time mopping up the floor than do the men ...
And so on and on it can go.

My point is that the search for 'equality' can never end, and that in the process of searching for this impossible goal, the stirring up of male hatred is usually a major consequence - and, indeed, in the case of feminists, it is a purposeful aim.

Furthermore, given that 'equality' can never be achieved (even in simple matters to do with pay) the never-ending search for it by the feminists in all sorts of areas will forever involve the stirring up of hatred towards men in all sorts of areas.

 Feminists will seek to stir up hatred towards men on the basis of any statistical differences (real or imagined)

Indeed, over and over again, we see that feminists will seek to stir up hatred towards men on the basis of any statistical differences (real or imagined) that might be found between men and women,
And so, for example, if more men are found working in this canteen than women, the feminists will argue that there is a 'glass ceiling' that prevents women from taking up this job, but if there are more women than men working in it, then they will argue that the pay is too low compared to other more male-dominated jobs.

Either way, they will stir up hatred towards men.

Let me tell you what would happen if women throughout the nation - as a whole - ever earned more than men in their jobs
 
And if ever there came a time that men spent more hours at home looking after the children, the feminists would suddenly discover that children were not a burden but a pleasure!

"This is outrageous," they would say. "Those poor women are out at work while the men are at home sitting in front of the TV and having a good time bonding with their children."

You have to understand the mind-set of these revolting dysfunctional women. They are driven by a hatred of men. This hatred is the only thing that unites them and it is the only thing that explains what they say, think, and do.

For example, recall Hillary Clinton's speech to the First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador...

"Women have always been the primary victims of war"

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. ..."

But if more women than men were actually killed in wars, does anyone seriously think that Hillary Clinton would have then said that men were the primary victims of war?
Of course not.

She would have emphasised the greater number of deaths of women during wars and made a great song and dance about it.

These men-hating feminists will always attempt to stir up male hatred whatever the situation. It does not matter who gets paid more or who gets killed more, these nasty wimmin will use any differences to stir up hatred towards men.

Indeed, when a man kills his partner, he is deemed to be a violent thug. But when she kills him, it is still said that this is because he was a violent thug.

And even though women initiate most divorces, the message from the media and the politicians is that men are abandoning their families. But if men initiated most divorces it would again be said that men are abandoning their families.

If boys do better than girls educationally then it is argued that there is bias in the system. If girls do better than boys then it is argued that this is so because girls work harder and/or because they are more intelligent.

Feminists will always twist the evidence and the facts to demonise men.
And they will do this, basically, for two reasons.
 most of the leading feminists are severely dysfunctional 'women'

Firstly, most of the leading feminists are severely dysfunctional 'women' and/or they are a particular type of lesbian. And, in both cases, it is quite clear from their past histories and their rhetoric that they positively hate men - in some cases, perhaps with some justification as a result of experience.

(Please note that I feel no antipathy whatsoever towards lesbians or lesbianism. My personal view is that people being intimate with each other is a good thing and, further, that it is nobody's business what they choose to do.)

Secondly, there are now, literally, billions of dollars, numerous empires, and millions of jobs that depend on the public swallowing the idea that women need to be defended from men in some way or other. And the feminists (together with many others) can only maintain these luxuries by continually stirring up hatred toward - and a fear of - men.

Finally, it is worth emphasising that you can never have 'equality' between two things that are not equal by definition. And so, for example, you can have equality among 'people', but not between 'men' and 'women'.

And there is no scenario that anyone could come up with that would bring about 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' unless no distinction between 'men' and 'women' was actually being made.
Moronic Statement Alert

"Equality of opportunity is easy to attain."
Oh really?

Try saying that to young black men living in ghettos and also see how 'equal' are their 'opportunities' when compared to those living in rich neighbourhoods and who have been educated in the most expensive of schools.

Try saying that to short dumpy women who wish to become ballet dancers.

Try saying that to the boys whose education is being biased in favour of the girls and who can often barely read.

Yea, sure. Equality of opportunity is soooooooo easy to attain!

Indeed. Having spent billions upon billions of dollars in order to achieve it, and having wasted zillions of hours in discussions concerning the matter, and having had thirty years of being engulfed in huge swathes of propaganda devoted to it, 'equality of opportunity' has not really quite been achieved, has it?

As such, the notion that it is 'easy to attain' seems somewhat laughable.
To say the least!

Indeed, getting a man on the moon, figuring out the human genome, building the most complex of supercomputers, constructing the most amazing of technologies, and even, perhaps, the artificial generation of life itself, seem to be a whole lot easier!

Well. How is this so?
Why is 'equality' so hard to achieve?
Well. I have already given you the answer above.
And the answer is very simple.

It is not possible to achieve 'equality' between things that are, fundamentally, not equal!
And the hopeless quest for this impossible goal is being generated largely by extremely vindictive groups of women whose careers depend on forever stirring up hatred towards men.
 most feminists and women's groups want there to be a permanent gender war. Without such a war, they would evaporate into thin air

Indeed, most feminists and women's groups want there to be a permanent gender war. Without such a war, they would evaporate into thin air, because there would be no reason for them to exist. Most feminists and women's groups need to maintain an inter-gender war in order to generate their support and their funding, and also to maintain their positions of power as well as their jobs. And the more power, resources and jobs that they wish to cling on to, the greater must be the inter-gender war that they need to stimulate.

Indeed, anything that undermines - or makes more insecure - the special nature of close heterosexual relationships is something that feminists will always support and encourage.

Whether it is supporting same-sex marriage (to undermine traditional marriage) getting women out to work, paying women welfare to encourage relationship break-ups, forever urging women to feel abused in some way and to prosecute their partners, unjustly high alimony payouts, demonising or mocking men, encouraging lesbianism, the aim is the same. Make it as difficult as possible for men and women to have secure relationships. Disempower men within those relationships as much as possible, and ensure that when relationships break up then the men lose out the most.
In conclusion; feminism is not about equality. It is about stirring up hatred towards men; no matter what the true situation is.
And because 'equality' can never be achieved, this stirring up of hatred towards men seems set to go on and on and on; unless, that is, feminists are utterly discredited and exposed for who they really are.

And if you take the time to look very closely at what underpins, energises and unites feminists, you will find that there is only one emotion lying at the core of their beliefs -  a very strong desire to stir up hatred towards men.

Indeed, you do not even need to read the various outpourings of the feminists in order to figure out what their views will be on any given matter. Just ask yourself this simple question: "What would my views be if I hated men and if I wanted to stir up this hatred in others?" And your answer to this question will almost certainly be consistent with what most feminists are actually saying.
Finally, take a look at this short piece to see what 'benefits' feminism brings to those societies that advocate it. It won't take much intelligence to make the connections for yourselves.
Where Is The Equality In This?

In a nutshell: Feminists have gained their power by following a very simple strategy.
Claim (often falsely) to have found some difference between men and women, and then make a fuss about it.

If men get paid more, claim that women are being discriminated against when it comes to earnings.
If women get paid more, claim that women are being cheated because they have to pay more in taxes.
If men get killed more, claim that the real victims are the women who survived.
If women get killed more, claim that the dead women are the real victims.
Keep pumping up the hysteria and the anger- for years on end -  over any difference between men and women that can be found or imagined simply in order to inflame hatred towards men and, hence, to attract the support of millions of women.

Lie, exaggerate, twist and deceive as much as possible in order to maximise all the effects.
Then sit back and enjoy all the power and the funding that derives from all this - as well as from all the numerous extra goodies that arise from all the ensuing disharmony between men and women that is being caused.

And, of course, the feminists and their poodle boys will never stop doing these things
Why should they stop?

It is win-win all the way for them.
And, of course, because 'equality' is an impossible goal, this will go on forever into the future.
Unless they are stopped.

A Permanent Gender War?