Fight Equality
Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 6:24PM Equality, what a horrible thought.
The thought of everyone, everything, being equal. No one is better, no one is worse.
Of course, this is impossible. But, those people who believe in the state (the same people who always use the word "we") seem to think highly of equality. So much so that they want to force you at gunpoint (the law) to make sure you treat everyone exactly the same and money is stolen from you (taxes) and given to certain groups to help them become "equal".
People who believe in equality also tend to like the word "fair". They use it with great abandon. That's not fair, they say!
But, what is fair? In a free market if you receive something from someone and you don't think it is "fair" then you can choose to not accept the transaction. Many people, usually those who are incompetent or do not understand how to conduct themselves to receive their "fair share", think we need the government to enforce fairness.
This is a ludicrous concept. Take, for example, a man who has an NBA franchise but who does not like black skinned people so he chooses not to employ any dark skinned people on his team and they come in last every year.
Should he be forced to take dark skinned people on his team? Of course not. And, what will happen if he continues to "discriminate" against blacks on his team? He will eventually go bankrupt as his team comes in last place year over year.
So, who gets hurt most from irrational discrimination? The person discriminating. There is no need to punish him for being so stupid as to not employ some of the humans who are most genetically predisposed to the sport. He punishes himself.
Woman's Lib & Gay Marriage
Women's lib is funny as is the desire for gay marriage in that both groups don't actually want liberty. They want to be as enslaved as the rest of us!
Women originally wanted the right to vote. Talk about going in the wrong direction. It's caled suffrage for a reason.
And now gays actually want to have the government oversee and approve of their romantic choices! Again, totally wrong direction. Welcome to the slave ship, boys!
The "Role" of Women
When it comes to the "roles" of males and females in society it then becomes slightly more nebulous. Here there is not necessarily a "right" or "wrong"... although you can sense and feel what is right or wrong when you see it.
One thing is clear. Both sexes have very different wiring, in general. As example, for men, the first testicular guard - the "cup" - was used in hockey in 1874; the first helmet was used in 1974. That means it only took 100 years for men to realize there is something as important as the appendage between their legs. And, try as you might, you cannot change human nature.
Many have noted the feminization of boys in the last few decades and all of the problems it has caused. The question is, should we encourage little girls to play more like boys... and little boys to be more open to their emotions like little girls?
I have to admit that I've changed my mind on the role of women in society during my lifetime.
As example, I remember thinking when I was younger, in the 1970s, that women should be encouraged to do everything that men can do. Back then it wasn't like today. There was the odd woman scientist or doctor but it certainly wasn't like today where women in western countries are often outnumbering the men in many scientific fields.
However, as I have grown older and having visited nearly 100 countries and lived in many different cultures I have changed my opinion on this. All of the cultures where women are not expected to do much more than look pretty, be delightful to talk to and to take care of the family are, almost without exception, much nicer places to live. At least for me!
Nicer places, by the way, have much less shootings, murders and suicides.
I am not saying women shouldn't do whatever they want to do. But this notion that they absolutely must do everything that, traditionally, men have done causes more harm than good.
This was driven home to me recently. I have a 6 year old boy and a 4 year old girl. They will never see the inside of an indoctrination camp (school) so long as the schools are run or regulated by the government so they are basically homeschooled. Being like most fathers, I want my kids to have every opportunity in life... and this, of course, means the more they know the better. So I recently pressed my wife on this subject, stating I'd like them to take some more private lessons and to learn at least 3 languages in the next few years (Spanish, English and German).
My wife, a Mexican who lived for 10 years in Germany, looked at me and bluntly stated, "Sure, we can do this for the boy. The girl, though, is pretty. Don't push her so hard on the education side. She'll be fine in life just being pretty and nice."
And, she is probably right. This is not to say that if she shows any indication or desire to learn any advanced specialties that we won't support her fully. But, if all she really cares about is dressing pretty in pink colored clothes, so be it. The world never was worsened by less beautiful, nice women.
And, if my daughter decides she wants to become a CEO or a doctor and she becomes the best in the world at it and the person in charge of hiring doesn't hire her, only one party really gets hurt by this. The employer.
What Kind of World Do You Want to Live In?
Do you want every rock band to be 'equal'? Every painting? Every movie?
If not, then why would you want all people to be equal? There is nothing fair about life and that is a good thing. In fact, it should be cherished.
For a dystopian view of what the world would look like if we are forced by government to all be equal, enjoy this excellent short film adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron". Part 1 is below and Part 2 can be viewed here.
Reader Comments (17)
I couldn't agree more. Women have been harmed by state supported feminist marxism just as much as men, if not more so. ...to think of all the women sitting in mind-numbingly dull cubicles/paper pusher jobs while their womb's are barren and their natural instincts subverted to the will of statist-capitalism.
Incredibly well said Nat! You should be a writer, if you aren't already. Have a blog?
I am starting one Jeff, I will let you know when it is operational! ...Big fan of your writings by the way, powerful stuff.
Jeff, that was an excellent article! Not that most of your writting isn't excellent, but that really hit the mark. You're really getting me thinking that I need to check out Acapulco ;)
Another insightful post by Jeff; two in a row (2 for me as I'm new to DV..)
Hey! Where is this going?
Sadly, no-where, unless & until there's a major, general shift in attitude, perception & grasp of reality.
I've just been listening to the socialists/Marxists on ABC radio (Australian Broadcasting Corp). They're pumping their stuff harder than ever (tax-payer funded, naturally..the complete infiltration of Marxism in media, education, the 'arts' etc in Oz was accomplished long ago)
Change will come, reality will take hold, but only after an enormous shock to the global system. Though it won't be a pleasant time for anyone, I say, "BRING IT ON!"...All we have to loose are the chains around our ankles and the blindfolds over our eyes.
Good stuff Jeff, go for it..
Ian, in Sydney
Its interesting to note that the late Aaron Russo is on record saying that Nicholas Rockefeller told him face to face that the entire womens liberation movement was funded 100% by the Rockefeller family to induce women to work so they could tax the other half of the population and get the kids in scholls at a younger age to indoctrinate them. Nick Rock also boasted how 9/11 was coming way before it happened and the war in Afghanistan would be a FRUITLESS effort of looking for boogeymen in caves and the war on terror would be used to break down the people and steal their liberties. Sick bastards were up against. TDV RULES!!!
Stick to money talk. This posting demonstrates incredible ignorance.
This post is disappointing.
Quoting Ayn Rand:
"Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. "
"Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire."
If you truly perceive the "proper" role for a woman to be that of docile, pretty, nice, submissive house wife - I can say with some certainty, that such a revelation betrays a deeper insight to your character and personal values than I would have ever guessed from your exceptionally insightful articles, grounded in individual liberty and the pursuit of freedom.
As I said, I'm a little disappointed.
Sergio,
This is not about siting passages from your version of the holy bible. This is about the real world where premises must be continually vetted against advancing scientific knowledge and life experience.
Scientific evidence thoroughly documents that significant differences - intellectual, personality, physical - exist between the sexes. (It was not as well documented during Rand's lifetime, as the field continues to advance). For most of us, this advancing knowledge mirrors what we have learned first hand in the "school of life" that is in session every day.
The "blank slate" theory, where the only difference between a man and a woman is what does or does not hang between the legs, is a PC hoax which has done a massive disservice to men AND women.
Educate yourself... Or as rand would say, "check your premises".
Personally, I do prefer women who are happily in touch with their feminine nature. I will leave the penis envy types for "lucky" fellows such as yourself.
Count me as one who prefers a women who is in touch with their feminine nature... I will save the penis envy types for other, um, "lucky" fellows.
Sergio: I think you got me wrong. I'm not saying women need to be docile... and I didn't say I find docile women sexually attractive. What I said was by forcing women into things that they don't necessarily have interest in (sciences etc) it causes problems in society. Just for the record, and because I got a few emails where people assumed my wife is docile and that i like 'submissive' women... my wife is latina and anyone who knows latinas knows that means she is incredibly strong and powerful.. she is much stronger than me and runs many of my businesses... but forcing my young daughter to excel in things like sciences and math even though she shows no indication of having any interest is probably the best thing to do...
Jeff:
I appreciate that clarification.
Using your own words: "What I said was by forcing women into things that they don't necessarily have interest in (sciences etc) it causes problems in society."
Well said.
My initial "take" on a first reading of your post was concern over what appeared to be a wandering away from the principles of individual liberty and towards collectivist pandering to highly subjective utopian-esque versions of what is in "society's best interest".
I agree completely that for an individual - any individual, male or female - to outsource their thinking, and fill the void with rationales provided by those with vague, anti-life agendas (like the feminists, or any group that seeks to use force to subjugate the rest of us to their "ideal") is morally wrong and something to be opposed.
This is a far cry however, from an assertion that men and women "ought" fill specific functions and behavioural characteristics for no other reason than those differences. Such a position ignores the human faculty of reason that defines human nature, and the philosophical basis that substantiates individualism and liberty.
Nat:
I find the ease with which you irrationally dismiss opposing view points particularly amusing. Further, the way you appear to enthusiastically cling to this notion that the differences between the sexes somehow delineates "appropriate" functional roles in a "proper" society both entertaining and tragic.
It is our similarities as human beings - using reason to explore and engage with our world - that defines us. The differences you appear to hold in such high regard are superficial at best when compared to the potential for an individual male or female to choose and excel in a field of human knowledge and pursuit.
I also prefer women who are in touch with their feminine side. This is my personal, individual preference. To extrapolate that and suggest that "society" would be better if all women shared my ideal is drivel at best, a delusional and dangerous fantasy at worst.
Per Jeff's clarification - women who, despite what they may have otherwise judged as appropriate and consonant with their interests, bend to "social convention" or "feminist pressure" to trail blaze new territory in the traditionally male world, is what is to be opposed and argued against.
In principle, that argument can be summed up as the necessity that all individuals, male and female, apply reason and develop ideas and values that are internally consistent with the world around them, and the differences that make them unique in the world.
If you think life is unfair then you simply do not understand all the rules.
Free men are not equal,
equal men are not free.
Hope you dont find countries where they treat women like they do in some Muslim countries nice,Saudi Arabia springs to mind.
Sergio: great comments, thanks
John: Of course I don't like anybody who oppresses others... and in some cases in those countries (arab) women are being oppressed... I have been a big supporter of any Arab women who defy this oppression (http://blog.amnestyusa.org/women/women-activists-prepare-to-defy-saudi-arabian-driving-ban/).
"...Further, the way you appear to enthusiastically cling to this notion that the differences between the sexes somehow delineates "appropriate" functional roles in a "proper" society both entertaining and tragic."
Hmm, I think we have misunderstood each other.
"Per Jeff's clarification - women who, despite what they may have otherwise judged as appropriate and consonant with their interests, bend to "social convention" or "feminist pressure" to trail blaze new territory in the traditionally male world, is what is to be opposed and argued against."
I agree with both you and Jeff on this 100%. It is not individual choice that is the problem, but rather the busybodies who claim to know how others should best live their lives.
Anti-discrimination laws which place either civil or criminal penalties for discrimination are not actually about eliminating or reducing discrimination. They are instead about what forms of discrimination will be permitted or even required by the state.
Say for instance the CRA did reduce the discrimination against minorities but it does so by mandating discrimination. The forms of discrimination mandated are reverse discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. Reverse discrimination is manifested as quotas and set asides. Recently a job posting in the Federal judiciary came to my attention for a magistrate position. It stated that women and minorities are encouraged to seek the position. Effectively this means that white males will be sent to the back of the bus if a qualified woman or minority applies regardless of the Orwellian clause of being equal opportunity. As far as viewpoint discrimination this is shown that should an individual who owns a business and for whatever reason does not wish to serve or hire some category of person that the state has privileged then that business owner is disadvantaged in not being able to run his business in accordance to what may very well be deeply held beliefs. Granted most people are not concerned about the conscience of some Klansman being violated but it is certainly a slippery slope. It has not been merely some unsympathetic bigot what has been effected.
Justice requires equality before the law. But it must be remembered that the scope of the law is limited. Unfortunately once a particular form of discrimination becomes a legal issue it also becomes a political issue. Politics will either precede, accompany or follows where the law goes. That is inescapable. And politics or the partisan spirit is incompatible with justice.
Again it is not whether there will be discrimination or no discrimination. It is about what forms of discrimination will be permitted or even required by the state. Anti-discrimination legal structures increase the risk of politicizing ever increasing aspects of private life.
Nat:
Thanks for clarifying. I can see we're on the same page. As I noted to Jeff - I jumped the gun with a poor interpretation of the point he was trying to make - and, after re-reading your posts armed with the proper context - see that I misinterpreted yours as well.
Reasonable and patient minds shall prevail!
Cheers