Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
What Is Equality?
Vox Day recently made a blog post where he wrote a response to an angry female college student. While I don't agree with everything he said in his response, it was nonetheless one of the most well-written blog posts I've read in a long time.
-By Caleb Jones
I'm going to teach you a hard, but very important lesson...only about 200 people on a planet of 7 billion actually care about your feelings, and that's if you're lucky. The sooner you grasp this lesson, the better off you will be. And since almost no one gives a damn what you do, say, think, or feel, appealing to your feelings when you encounter differences of opinion is not only illogical, but useless.
I once saw Whoopi Goldberg being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. They were discussing one of those big emotional left/right political issues. I think it was gun control but I could be wrong. Of course Bill was arguing the conservative side and Whoopi the liberal side. Bill rattled off some facts, Whoopi rattled off an opinion.
Bill explained that the facts invalidated her opinion. To which she responded something like, "Well, okay. But that doesn't change my opinion. This is how I feel." "But you're wrong," he answered, "The facts just proved that." "Okay, but that doesn't matter," she said, "This is what I believe. This is how I feel."
She actually repeated it one or two more times. She was surprisingly truthful about the fact her political opinions about how the world should work were not based on facts or reality, but on her feelings. Even when she agreed the facts invalidated her feelings, and thus, her opinions.
Whenever I discuss long term monogamy not working, and state mountains of facts to prove what I'm saying, I get a lot of emotional arguments in response. If I respond by stating how the facts disprove their emotional stances, the reaction is usually anger and name calling.
Something I learned while being married (and experienced several more times with other women after my marriage), is that when you're arguing with a woman, and you finally prove with indisputable facts and evidence that you're right, the woman often reacts by getting MORE angry, not less. I mean, when they realize you're right, that's when they get REALLY mad. (Men do this too. Especially with the monogamy stuff.)
This is one of the many reasons I simply don't argue with women any more. I don't do drama. If she gets upset with me, I soft next her temporarily and go have sex with someone else. When she calms down, and they always do eventually, then I return. Arguing with her is literally a complete and utter waste of my time. So I don't do it.
The Myth of Equality
Vox said something else very accurate; something I've been saying for years:
Equality is a myth; it doesn't exist anymore than fairies and unicorns do. Yep. I've already quoted Scott Adams when he said equality is a false concept invented so stupid people could join arguments. Equality is a 100% theoretical construct that does not exist anywhere in nature nor anywhere in the human world.
After the interview, the 20/20 camera crew when right outside, walked a few blocks away, and started filming all the homeless people on the street. I was only about 13 years old at the time, but I still remember laughing. The news crew also noticed the fancy suits, jewelry, limousines, and fancy homes the rich politicians had. Homeless people and super rich people. In a communist country. Hm.
Equality does not exist, and will never exist in the human world no matter what form of government you choose, what kind of economy you choose, or how you decide to treat different races, religions, and yes, genders. Because of the pursuit of the unicorn called "equality", you have women in the workplace screaming that they want equal work for equal pay, and at the same time they'll need you, the man, to lift that heavy UPS box that just came in.
Oh, and you need to replace that big heavy water jug on top of the water cooler too. And you can't ever raise your voice at her if she does a bad job. That's mean. (But you can yell at the male employees all you like). And if she starts crying in the office, you'd better just leave her alone and let her cry.
Oh, and she's going to leave the workforce for five years in the middle of her career so she can raise her kids. But she still wants the exact same pay the men are getting the minute she gets back. Otherwise you're discriminating against her and oppressing her.
She wants "equality". She wants something that doesn't exist...and frankly, something she doesn't even want. She doesn't want to be treated exactly like a man, and she knows it.
Some of us were born smarter than others. Or better looking than others. Or with more athletic ability. Some of us can control our emotions, others start screaming their heads off at the drop of a hat. Some of us are organized and get things done, others fart around and waste time. Some of us are motivated, others would rather smoke weed and watch Hulu. Some of us are peaceful people, others like to start wars (conservatives) or like to throw things at police and glass windows during protests (liberals). And don't even get me started on the 16 different types of Myers Briggs personalities there are.
In no way are you ever going to successfully enforce this silly concept called "equality" on all of these different types people. It's impossible.
All you can do is not give any one group any special treatment.
That means that yes, you pay women exactly the same as you pay men, but that also means if she's crying in the office on a regular basis, you fire her ass, just as if she were a man. That means that yes, women can serve on the front lines in the military, but that also means she has to carry the 75 pound flamethrower for two days through the desert, just as if she were a man. And if she can't, she gets booted out, just as if she were a man.
But as I've just said, that's not what women want. What a wonderful world it would be if everyone stopped focusing on the myth of "equality" and instead focused on being the best people they could be, using their own talents to the fullest.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
bhodi1555 2013-06-10 06:13:38
Greg 2013-06-10 08:25:10
"Oh, and you need to replace that big heavy water jug on top of the water cooler too." Hahaha women in my workplace got so upset at me when I refused... one of them said "I thought you were a gentleman" to which I replied "No, I'm just a colleague". They banded together against me immediately for my refusal.
Jon 2013-06-10 08:37:03
That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
"There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people." -Thomas JeffersonHowever, what do you think about the argument that some special treatment is necessary to offset the institutional advantages that white men have enjoyed for at least the last several hundred years? I'm generally opposed to special treatment for specific groups and things like affirmative action, but I also recognize that we've kind of been given a head start so even if the same opportunities are available to everyone regardless of race or gender, we're in a better position to take advantage of those opportunities.
dennis 2013-06-10 08:59:16
WRT to arguing with women, I follow Mode One's instructions: "Never argue with apologize for or try to defend or justify yourself against harsh, subjective or opinionated criticisms. Just listen to them, and then throw them out of your mind. they mean nothing. absolutely nothing. If you get into a debate about your behavior or in fact anything(good, bad, appropriate or inappropriate) you decrease your chances of rendering a woman speechless."
Blackdragon 2013-06-10 11:04:32
“Oh, and you need to replace that big heavy water jug on top of the water cooler too.” Hahaha women in my workplace got so upset at me when I refused… one of them said “I thought you were a gentleman”Isn't it interesting how that's the exact same thing they say when you are unwilling to buy them dinner five times before having sex? "Be a gentleman" now means "Do things for me I would never do for you".
what do you think about the argument that some special treatment is necessary to offset the institutional advantages that white men have enjoyed for at least the last several hundred years?With all the IRS/NSA/phone records/journalists stuff that has come to light about the government recently, do you really trust the government to be fair and judicious in granting just the right amount of special treatment to certain groups?
Ed 2013-06-10 12:01:28
Flamethrowers aren't allowed anymore…Geneva Convention. That said, I'd like to see a 5'2" 100lb security force female drag my 6'2' son out of the line fire if need be. Oh wait, that's not possible...
Rose 2013-06-10 17:18:16
I consider a feminist, however I mostly agree with you about equality. To me, being a feminist means wanting to better the lives of women. Sort of how your blog aims to better the lives of men, which is awesome. I live a fairly traditional life, in terms of gender roles. I cook, clean, give bjs, look pretty etc. In exchange, I suppose, my man takes really good care of me. But, that's my choice. I believe women and men should have freedom of choice. To me, that is feminism. Not too bad, is it? 🙂
Rose 2013-06-10 17:21:33
And, from what I've read, your treatment of women consists of honesty and respect. That is the definition of a gentleman!
Jon 2013-06-11 08:52:06
With all the IRS/NSA/phone records/journalists stuff that has come to light about the government recently, do you really trust the government to be fair and judicious in granting just the right amount of special treatment to certain groups?No, I don't trust the government to get it right. I just wondered if there was any validity to the argument, and, if so, how you might address it.
JF 2013-06-11 10:51:13
See, Jon, since the government can't get everything perfect, it follows according to the libertarian logic that the government should not get involved in anything at all. We may ass well get rid of the police and military as well, I mean, are you really going to trust the government with such things after all it has come to light??? Off course, libertarianism works under the assumption that the free market is a perrfect meritocracy, but the reality is no where near close to that. Many people are still quite racist and/or sexist, and the lack of anti-discrimination laws would make it even harder for minorities to surmount centuries of prejudice. A person who truly believed in meritocracy would support legal measures to eliminate discrimination, so people could rise to the top regardless of race of gender, but libertarians are more worried on defending the rights of business owner to be bigots that the rights of those affected by it.
Blackdragon 2013-06-11 11:47:34
No, I don’t trust the government to get it right. I just wondered if there was any validity to the argument, and, if so, how you might address it.I'll try one more time. When I move to Singapore or China, should the government make special accommodations for me because of the "institutional advantages" Chinese people will have over me in those countries? (Especially when we both acknowledge that equality is a myth?)
See, Jon, since the government can’t get everything perfect, it follows according to the libertarian logic that the government should not get involved in anything at all. We may ass well get rid of the police and military as well, I mean, are you really going to trust the government with such things after all it has come to light???You're either lying or very ignorant. Libertarians are not anarchists. As a libertarian I love the government managing things like roads, cops, and fire trucks. I 100% support that. Your argument is the typical false and silly distraction used to detract from the point of the discussion, which is how incompetent and corrupt big government is. Small government is fine. We need government. Big government is the problem.
Off course, libertarianism works under the assumption that the free market is a perrfect meritocracy, but the reality is no where near close to that.I don't believe that at all. A purely free market would indeed be quite chaotic. But I'd rather have a little chaos than government oppression.
Many people are still quite racist and/or sexist, and the lack of anti-discrimination laws would make it even harder for minorities to surmount centuries of prejudice.People like you forget that under my system: 1. Black people (for example) would be able to start businesses and only hire black people, and not white people, if they wanted. This would more than offset the small percentage of racist white assholes who refused to hire black people. 2. In a free market, racist businesses would fail. If some racist asshole in my town opened a restaurant that said "Only white customers allowed here", which indeed would be legal under my system, that asshole would go out of business within three months (at the most) because the vast majority of white people would never go to his restaurant. So while free market isn't perfect, it does indeed solve a lot of these problems you think it won't.
Sparks 2013-06-11 12:07:24
As I've said before, women want 'equality' but only on their terms. Which of course isn't equality at all.
JF 2013-06-11 12:26:42
Uh, I think you did not got the first part right. Of course I know libertarians are pro police and military, that was the entire point. Your assertion that racist business would fail is nice... except that in reality it does not happen. Look at the texaco case in 1994 ) where senior executives at Texaco were caught on tape making all kinds of racist remarks and plotting to destroy documents related to a federal discrimination case. Predictably, a huge lawsuit ensued, and Texaco ended up paying millions afterwards. Now, did Texaco went bankrupt after millions of americans stopped buying gas from them for being so racist? No. People don't care. For a business like that to lose customers because of racism it would take the (extreme and unlikely) example you mentioned: outright refusing to sell gas to black customers, for example. But business owners are not going to be so explicitely racist as the guy in your example. The will simply refuse to hire or promote black people.
Blackdragon 2013-06-11 13:22:58
You're all over the place (Libertarians are pro-military? What are you smoking?) and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Under a libertarian system, any employees could sue their employers if they thought they were being treated unfairly. And if a jury found the company guilty, that company would be in big trouble and have to pay reparations. Lawsuits are indeed a necessary part of the free market. I also notice that under your big government system, evil racist Texaco was allowed to remain in business. So I'm not sure why you think your system would be better than mine. (Not to mention the fact that Texaco, like all Big Oil, is only as big and powerful as they are because of the support and backing of big government. Without big government you wouldn't have Big Oil. Or banks that were To Big To Fail, etc.) I think you're making the classic emotional error of mistaking "libertarian" for "conservative".
Alejandro 2013-06-11 21:24:59
Wait, so you agree that unfair treatment of employees should be illegal? Then we agree, but that is not what you said in the other thread (the canada thread). I asked you if you were against all forms of governmental employee protection laws, and you said yes. Texaco was forced to pay reparations, which is fair enough. Is not like the CEO wrote "do not promote black people" on their official guidelines.
Blackdragon 2013-06-11 21:40:01
Wait, so you agree that unfair treatment of employees should be illegal?No, I said lawsuits should be legal.
Alejandro 2013-06-12 01:10:10
Im really not getting your position at all. So treating employees unfairly would be legal, but you can sue against it? How would employees being treated unfairly expect to win if the other party has done nothing against the law?
firstname.lastname@example.org 2013-06-12 13:37:29
BD, what is it you disagree with in Vox's blog post?
Blackdragon 2013-06-12 13:48:59
So treating employees unfairly would be legal, but you can sue against it?My friend, I know you mean well but your ignorance is getting tedious. You have no idea how the legal system works and I'm not going to explain it to you. I would suggest you Google the difference between civil and criminal law, and educate yourself before you get into these kinds of debates.
BD, what is it you disagree with in Vox’s blog post?I agree with Vox on most of the specifics he espouses, but I disagree with him on his overall premise, shared by many men, that women somehow owe it to society to do what's best for society. He will discuss things like, it would be better for society if women had babies so the human race can thrive and continue, or it would be better for society if women didn't vote because they always vote for socialist policies that eventually bankrupt countries. Etc. Even if these things are accurate (and factually they probably are), they're irrelevant, at least to me, since the individual isn't responsible for society. The individual is responsible for the individual (and perhaps the individual's children).
email@example.com 2013-06-14 12:19:49
BD, neat points, and I suspect you tried hard to summarise. Thing with society, it seems, is that it is a natural and inevitable creation of the weaker among the species. The strong (read male) individual thrive in independence, the weaker need society. Society emasculates the alpha, the ultimate being the gentleman, that pathetic creature of feminine circumstance scorned by both the alpha and the siren. It is wise to transcend society and own one's circumstance, but it is foolhardy to destroy it or remain absolutely indifferent to it. Good blog!
Luciano F. Fitzgerald 2013-06-25 12:49:31
Well... you're forgetting that they want "equality" as it is defined by THEM. This means they cherry pick the areas they want "equality" in while ignoring others. Like the ones you listed. So they don't really want "equality".. what they want is a society where everything works in the favor of women. Feminists Truly don't live in reality and have no intention of ever accepting reality.
Ben A. Wallace 2013-06-30 19:03:43
Unless, of course, you’re beholden to feminism. In that case, you’ll believe the above is evidence of discrimination. You’ll believe what feminists taught you to believe: that gender is a social construct.
e! 2016-09-06 15:17:18
Equality is the daughter of envy. No wonder it has always had an immeasurable power over the minds of people and politics. Who is mad with envy needs to believe they are worse off than the object of their jealousy due to some injustice. Imagination will provide the injustice.