Why I am Not an Equalist

If men and women are no different then why bother having sex with each other in all the myriad definitions of “sex”?

If men and women are no different, that degrades all the wonderful things that men do including make a world for women that compensates for the limitations of women’s (and men’s!) biology.

I do not believe that women want a world of wimpy, hurt, whiners, who are afraid of breaking a nail, and gigantic mean women picking up their slack, but it would appear that is where we are going until women learn to appreciate what makes a man different from a woman.

If women ever learn to fully transcend the limitations of our biology it will be due overwhelmingly to the inventions of men. Should that occur and women do not rise to the challenge of maintaining infrastructure, protecting men, etc. in favor of simply preserving their youth and beauty, they are in for a rude backlash. I’m sorry if that makes me not an “equalist”.

I recognize that there are individuals who choose to be transgendered or gender-fluid and I don’t believe that it degrades them to celebrate their “rebellious” stance; however, in terms of “revolutions” I believe that scientifically, biologically, and psychologically this one will fail. I believe that men are kinder than women to other women. I have seen disparate men work together to accomplish meaningful, tangible things while disparate women simply cat fight or come up with nonsense platitudes that homogenize differences for the “sake of peace”. Whereas, “diplomacy” is a masculine art. This may be because War is also a masculine art albeit I contend that the subconscious or conscious motivation for all wars is feminine materialism. Whereas, for men, the subconscious or conscious motivation is sex, which I find to be a nobler objective.

This does not say that there are not many fine female leaders of all sorts only that such women should be recognized as being distinct from the majority and should be required to petition for exceptions to their biology. Such women have always existed throughout history and did not require any special “rights” granted to them by the state in order to fulfill their destinies.

Since I believe in a small state, whereas both feminism and “equalism” require a large state, I am willing to sacrifice “equality” for “freedom”.

20 thoughts on “Why I am Not an Equalist

  1. A feminist uses the magic word ‘Equality’ to claim the moral high ground.
    – 2 unequal entities being treated as equal – is not morally sound.

    Damn, I’m a poet, and I did not know it!

  2. Caprizchka, an excellent and nuanced piece. Thank you. I’ll now do a link to this on my blog and add this site to our list of recommended blogs and websites. I’ve signed up to receive your future posts automatically. Keep up the good work!

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)
    http://j4mb.org.uk

  3. Pingback: Caprizchka: ‘Why I am not an Equalist’ |

  4. Hi Caprizchka

    I have been remiss, not visiting, what a beautifully articulated and thought provoking post – and you saved the best for last.

    “Since I believe in a small state, whereas both feminism and “equalism” require a large state, I am willing to sacrifice “equality” for “freedom”.”

    Anja

  5. Excellent. So turns the great tide. We have reached a point in history where it is becoming increasingly clear that freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. I am very pleased.

  6. “Why I am Not an Equalist

    If men and women are no different then why bother having sex with each other in all the myriad definitions of “sex”?”

    Because equal does not mean “same”,

    No two individuals are the same.

  7. Excellent post, Caprizchka. I see feminism as a gender narcissistic phenomenon, a subset of the late Christopher Lasch’s “The Culture of Narcissim.”

    You are wise to reject it.

    BTW, I suggest that what you see as the limitations of feminine biology can only be perceived as such using men as a reference. I question the validity of this, and I am inclined to interpret feminine and masculine biologies as having asymmetric optimized purposes.

    I enjoy your thought-provoking posts. Thank you.

    • I understand your interpretation however feel that as the world’s population approaches 8 billion, the value of female biology degrades even if various ideologies which require endless growth have as yet failed to come to grips with that.

      Thank you for commenting. Please feel free to stop by anytime. 🙂

  8. ” I contend that the subconscious or conscious motivation for all wars is feminine materialism. Whereas, for men, the subconscious or conscious motivation is sex, which I find to be a nobler objective.”

    Help me understand this?

  9. My use of language is unusual because my frame of reference is unusual. I regret that I am not universally understood. I am informed by modern theories of evolution, even if I am not actually a fan of either Darwin or Dawkins. Rather I am a bigger fan of Karen Straughan’s theories of sex role dynamics and I tend to look at problems mathematically and to attempt to express them metaphorically.

    I believe that young women are biologically programmed to seek a mate who will provide her with “security”. Older women are programmed to seek power over other women. Sometimes young women act like old women and vice versa particularly in times of resource scarcity and depending on position within Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (which, I believe could use some fine-tuning based on gender).

    Sometimes traumatized women switch to more “masculine” motivations and sometimes traumatized men switch to more “feminine” motivations.

    Population growth beyond resources aggravates all of these behaviors whether from a micro or macro level. Both of these objectives require resources however men tend to be more efficient and productive producers as well as military strategists since they don’t have a uterus which competes with energy usage and tend to produce more Human Growth Hormone and Testosterone.

    The victors of war tend to marshal resources. Population also goes down as a result of war. After a war, the survivors on the victor’s side tend to have a whole lot of sex.

  10. Yeah, I pretty much understand the ‘men get more sex’ part of the spoils of war. It’s the “feminine materialism” part that confuses me.
    Maybe through the spoils of war, the victor becomes wealthy, and therefore the victors wife becomes wealthy as well? Might be to taxing for my tiny brain……………

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s