DISCUSSION"Do Women Really Want Equality?" (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by pinksphinx

"Do Women Really Want Equality?"

I came across this phenomenally well articulated article explaining so many of the ideas I've come across on this sub. It's hard to talk about these ideas in person, especially to more feminist oriented friends, but this piece does a fantastic job conveying so many of the points I read about on here.

Oh, and I highly recommend watching "The Red Pill". The men who are speaking are... a bit rough around the edges, and their points aren't resoundingly solid, but the documentary nonetheless gets some good points and dialogue going between "men's rights activists" and feminists.

Keep rocking the boat ladies!

[–]TankVet 47 points48 points  (0 children)

So I read a book by Phil Martelli, the head basketball coach at St Joe's, and he says treating everybody fairly never meant treating them the same. Some guys need a kick and some guys need a hug and some guys need to be left the hell alone. Doing the same thing for everybody is inherently unfair because everybody is not the same.

[–]Willow-girl 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I guess I'm an old-school feminist, from the era when the whole point was to free both genders to pursue their inclinations and aptitudes even if they didn't align with traditional gender roles.

But here's the thing, ladies: just because you want to be a welder doesn't mean your partner will automatically be interested in picking up a share of the domestic chores. It's very likely you will end up wearing both hats (add a third if you're inclined to motherhood). Society, at least American society, isn't inclined to assist you, either. You will have to wrangle a suitable work-life balance for yourself.

[–]Landry86 13 points14 points  (5 children)

Respect, yes. Equality, no.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)


    [–][deleted]  (3 children)


      [–][deleted]  (2 children)


        [–][deleted]  (1 child)


          [–]ivegotsomequestions0 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Feminism in its early days went hand in hand with socialism because people realized that having to toil away at dangerous, dirty, underpaid jobs, where neither employer nor government cared about your welfare, did not promote human dignity or self-actualization, and that both men and women were screwed unless rich. At some point in the 20th century, feminism lost the accompanying socialism. The doctrine became that working a job provided something beyond financial independence—that it is actually fulfilling, and that men are fulfilled when they slog away to take care of themselves and their families. So women have been chasing this mythical fulfillment ever since. As they gained more access to men's work and roles, they rejected the parts that were not fulfilling, still thinking that a) men had a great deal, so b) they should too.

          Most feminists and progressives still haven't woken up and seen what it really is to have an equal stake in society. It doesn't really mean self-actualization, and it comes with lots of unpleasantness. The fact that they don't want the bad parts and they STILL insist that they face widespread gendered oppression in Western countries makes many men quite rightly think that they have no idea what they are talking about.

          [–]WeCaredALot 17 points18 points  (3 children)

          I don't think women want to be exactly the same as men. However, I do think there needs to be more respect for 'female roles.' Growing up, I struggled with femininity because it always seemed so devalued compared to masculinity despite people swearing up and down that women needed to be feminine. There seemed to be constant mixed messages around that. For example, I think that more service/caring jobs need to be paid higher wages. I understand that men's jobs tend to be more dangerous and specialized, and for that reason, I respect the decision to allot higher salaries to those kinds of jobs. But jobs like assistants and caregivers in senior homes, teachers, etc. need to be paid significantly more than their current rate if we want to continue with this belief that women's roles and traits like nurturing, caregiving, and support are inherently valuable.

          I've also never been comfortable with the idea of motherhood being something so private and unprotected outside of the home. A woman's livelihood should not be dependent on her husband and whether she is on good terms with him. Jobs that allow flexibility to work from home or services that generally aim to support mothers would be useful in providing women with support outside of what they may or may not get from their husbands. I hate this idea that the burden of choosing the right man is on the woman with no recourse so if something goes wrong, she is now reliant on him and his income. If motherhood is so central to a stable society, then there need to be provisions in place to protect women if the family unit breaks down. I understand that people think that's what alimony, spousal support, and child support are doing, but from what I've seen only the richest women are able to get away with financial murder like that. Middle to lower class women often aren't so lucky and are usually tasked with heading back to the workforce with a reduced work history anyway.

          [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          I think the fundamental point our society is missing is kind of embedded in what you said. Basically, we have feminism, which advocates for equality with man. But most people realize that men and women aren't equal in that we just aren't the same and can't be treated the same way. At the core of womanhood is the ability to birth and nurse children. Not that all women must do this, but it's something society should acknowledge. This is why feminism can't work. This is why feminism in practices asks for special rights for women. It's because we aren't the same. We need a feminism that acknowledges the core value of women in society and actually HELPS women to achieve that through some of what you were saying. We need a feminism that doesn't pit man and woman against each other, but helps them work together.

          [–]falconpush 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          I must say that Southern states are very female biased.

          [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (9 children)

          In the past with high infant mortality rates, keeping a woman's uterus safe made practical survival sense. In this day, advancements in medical technology and screening have lowered infant mortality rates to the point that we have excess reproductive capacity. There are no longer any practical reasons for women not to have equal opportunity. This is evident as many nations now have female combat soldiers.

          [–]En-Zu 8 points9 points  (3 children)

          I feel like women combat soldiers is a mistake and I'm fairly progressive. It's a very physically demanding job. I.e. situations like carrying other wounded soldiers.

          [–]d3gu 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Ehhh.... I know some women who are far more capable than supporting/carrying their peers than some blokes. Just saying.

          I'm 5ft with health issues and couldn't serve even if I wanted to. But - example - I swear one of the best nightclub bouncers I ever met was a woman (I was a DJ as a student, we worked the same club) and hard as nails. One time she got beaten up by a dad/son duo for rejecting the dad's advances (she wasn't interested). They broke her nose and generally worked her over until another bouncer could help drag them off. She was back at work as soon as the doc would allow, and could even joke about it after a while. The doctors had to rebreak her nose and I know it messed her sinuses up for a while, too. I haven't seen her in years as she moved abroad to do an apprenticeship, but from what I remember she wasn't even that tall, just very strong.

          All I'm saying is that I know plenty of lasses with physical jobs. As long as they can measure up to the standard, it seems almost detrimental to refuse able-bodied individuals the ability to serve.

          [–]En-Zu 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          Those blokes just need to go through basic and I'm sure physiologically they'd surpass those women. It's just body chemistry. I'd be more comfortable with it if we gave women soldiers hormonal therapy or something.

          And yes there should be no restriction on gender, just physical ability. However now we have different qualifying tests for each gender and the standards are lower for the female test. Also, it's always been interesting to me that in olympic target shooting the events are segregated and the womens' times are consistently lower than mens'. So even though fighting today is less physically intensive than its ever been there still might be reasons why women might not be as effective on the ground.

          There are plenty of nonphysical positions in the armed forces these days for women to serve in should they choose. It's ambiguous whether they have the capacity to serve as pilots but certainly for drones I think they could serve effectively.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          The gun is the great equalizer. All the strength needed is stored in the potential energy of the propellant... just be strong enough to pull the trigger. Women are actually better shots then men from what I have heard, so they are the logical choice for soldiers.

          Carrying stuff can be performed by vehicles or teamwork (ie. 2 stretcher bearers).

          Women will never be equal until they carry the burden of performance equally with men and that entails supporting and defending with violence, if needed, cultural institutions.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

          Keeping the uterus safe to account for infant mortality? Don't you mean keeping the baby safe? Because women are still quite likely to miscarry and have stillborn babies and there is not a huge emphasis on society in treating and preventing those problems.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          Keeping the uterus safe to account for infant mortality? Don't you mean keeping the baby safe?

          Keeping the uterus safe is to keep the woman safe and hence the baby, so yes to both questions.

          In RP praxology, the golden uterus is what makes females inherently valuable to the point of sexist laws and cultural practices favoring uterus bearers (females). Because of technology we now have a surplus of uterine capacity to replenish our species, so there is little point in protecting/favoring females over males, which leads to equality.

          Uterus is also called out, because with technology we can make artificial eggs and sperm. The only reproductive component not made in a lab or factory is the womb (uterus), so it still has value despite being in surplus capacity.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Thank you for the clarification. That's an interesting theory. I would agree with the first part, but I still think it is in human nature to protect the female (the uterus bearer ;)) even with advanced technology.

          [–]d3gu 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          I read that women can often be prosecuted for miscarrying :( I'm not even talking about 3rd-world or similar countries, it happens in the States too.

          My mother (a GP) told me a while ago that around 1/4 of pregnancies spontaneously miscarry. Be it genetic/chromosomal defects, physical problems, even Rhesus issues, it just happens, sometimes even before the lady realises she's pregnant.

          I'm not a mother, but I can't imagine anything more painful than miscarrying... and then getting blamed for it!

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          We think about 1/4 of pregnancies miscarry but those statistics include miscarriages so early that the woman doesn't even know she's pregnant, and it also fails to account for the fact that some women have multiple miscarriages. So while 1/4 of pregnancies are miscarry, it's closer to 1/10 women who experience miscarriage. I've had two. And I know women who have had multiple miscarriages, stillborns, cord accidents, etc not once has anyone experienced anything close to prosecution.

          [–]FriendFrog 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Feminism has always been about women struggling to gain more power in the name of "equality". Once equality has been achieved, feminism should die, but it refuses to, always insisting that women are at a disadvantage & blind to the truth. It's like someone who's broken free of handcuffs pretending that they're still on. Feminists look to Islam because it represents new, tougher handcuffs to break free of, fully knowing they never can. Egalitarianism doesn't have this problem because it's a perpetual balancing act. MRA's are simply the same as feminists, but with the sexes reversed.

          [–]Zippityzeebop 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Wow. What a great article. Thank you.

          [–]bowie747 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          Equality is fantastic, everybody agrees that's what we want.

          However that does not mean that we should be identical in every way, as some cultural movements would have you believe.

          We're equal when we contribute equally to the positive outcomes of each other, society and the earth. Which we used to for the most part.

          IMO trouble only started when we lost respect for each other.

          [–]unruffledlake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Thanks for sharing this article which I can add to my library of resources on this topic. That led me to discover her other equally thorough and powerful article-- Why Feminism Wants to Dismantle the Family.

          [–]artistacat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Honestly, I think it boils down to special privileges, such as being in the military, where 'equality' means lowered training standards, which would mean in an actual battlefield, disaster.

          I realize that 'equality' for women and men sometimes comes at the expense of others or entails changing something or a policy to benefit women. This isn't always true, but achieving equality the way it's seen by the modern world in many places is ironic given that something else has to be compromised, which could either work out for good or to a detriment.

          [–]artistacat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Honestly, I think it boils down to special privileges, such as being in the military, where 'equality' means lowered training standards, which would mean in an actual battlefield, disaster.

          I realize that 'equality' for women and men sometimes comes at the expense of others or entails changing something or a policy to benefit women. This isn't always true, but achieving equality the way it's seen by the modern world in many places is ironic given that something else has to be compromised, which could either work out for good or to a detriment.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          There is a huge difference between equality and feminism.

          [–]Willow-girl -2 points-1 points  (19 children)

          From the article:

          we don’t want to work dirty and dangerous jobs,

          Umm, some of us do. And yeah, we kind of expect equal treatment as a result.

          It's funny; I used to work as a DHI technician, a job that was traditionally done by men, but now is about 50/50 gender-wise. At a company conference, the keynote speaker was an elderly man who was a bigwig in the industry, and he launched his presentation by commenting on the number of female faces in his audience. The sound of hard-working women gritting their teeth was nearly audible, lol.

          [–]Omnibrad 12 points13 points  (8 children)

          Are you trying to pretend that is a dangerous job?

          Your workplace fatality rate is 1/10 that of an actual dangerous job like being a lumberjack or fisherman.

          [–]Landry86 7 points8 points  (0 children)


          [–]teaandtalk4 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          She said 'used to'.

          [–]Willow-girl 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          I used to be a DHI tech; now I'm back to working on a farm. The Bureau of Labor Statistics consistently rates farming as one of the most dangerous occupations in the U.S. I love what I do, and I try to be careful.

          Ha,,, the biggest risk in being a DHI tech is the wacky scheduling and the possibility of falling asleep behind the wheel driving between herds. There were many times I catnapped in rest areas or gas-station parking lots!

          I used to schedule a marathon testing session every month where I'd drive an hour and a half to get to a herd's 1:00 a.m. milking (had to be there a half-hour early to set up). I'd wrap up there by 5, shoot over to another herd a half-hour away and be ready for their 7 a.m. milking. I'd finish there about 11, catch a nap, grab some grub, and test a third herd at 5 p.m. With any luck, I'd be home in bed by midnight.

          I loved that job, too, but man the hours were a killer.

          [–]d3gu 0 points1 point  (4 children)

          It's not a competition, mind! Just because /u/willow-girl wasn't a lumberjack or fisherman (like I presume you do/ are familiar with) doesn't make her experience less valid.

          In 2012 it was claimed that 91 per 100,000 suffered fatalities in the logging industry. OK, so that's approx 30 times more than the average workplace death at 3.2 per 100,000, that's awful and negligent - most of those were from trees falling, which is terrible.

          However - being a DHI tech (I'm assuming this is in the dairy business?) is still dirtier and more dangerous than your average admin role, so relatively I guess it could still be considered risky? I used to be an onsite CAD Engineer and it was the dirtiest, least feminine job I've ever had. If I wasn't in the office telling people to avoid rat urine, buried jet fuel/chemical pipes, subterranean build sites risks or electric shocks, it was me trying to avoid that stuff too. One guy on my team nearly got scalped because of a ground condition mess-up! I had to drive a truck that still had traces of his forehead clinging to the inside roof and I am neither exaggerating nor kidding. Another guy fell down a hole and bruised his dick'n'balls and I was part of the team that had to deal with getting him out & sorted. Not fun for anyone.

          If you are reeeally dead-set on this random, biased comparison (I hope it's not the case, but it seems like you literally picked the most dangerous job from a list, and told the commenter her job isn't risky as a result), I would like to invite you to the StrawmanFallacyFinals: How many women die producing a child in the US each year: 1200 fatalities in 2013, and 60,000 near-fatalities (28 per 100,000 apparently). How many men die producing a child: I didn't check, probably none.

          All I'm saying is that you had an interesting point, but I always get skeptical when it subsides into random comparisons - I call it 'lazy debating'. Just wondering, but what attracted you/keeps you in a dangerous job? I had to leave mine owing to the insane hours and travel distance/time. It wasn't even the role (which I loved), it was the fact it was wrecking my health to work 9 hr shifts constantly with 3 hours travel each way. I was barely home.

          [–]Omnibrad 1 point2 points  (2 children)


          [–]d3gu 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          I'm sorry that all went over your head man, props for admitting to it though.

          (I'm guessing your job isn't fisherman/logger, then.)

          [–]Omnibrad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          I did not bother reading much of it.

          [–]Willow-girl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I just love it, I guess. Sure there are nasty hard parts, like getting splattered by manure, or having to ram your hand up a cow's ass to breed her, lol. But you kinda learn to take the good with the bad. I love to see a calf slither out and hit the straw and take its first breath. I love the way that heifers are silly and flighty like teenaged girls. I love to see a fresh cow that I'd bred come into the parlor with a full bag, dripping milk. I love seeing the sun come up through barn windows and the good feeling of tiredness at the end of the day. From the first time I set foot in a dairy barn, I had this strong sense of homecoming, that I'd found my place in the world. I was hooked! Originally I'd only meant to take a break from the corporate world and return after a few months. It's been 14 years now.

          [–]LamiaQueen 2 points3 points  (9 children)

          The article is generalizing, obviously there are women in "dirty and dangerous" jobs, but on the whole women don't prefer those jobs.

          [–]Landry86 1 point2 points  (7 children)

          Yeah ew... If I'm getting dirty I better be running a Tough Mudder or going camping or something. Dirty jobs are for men

          I would like to be a farmer though... hm....

          [–]Willow-girl 2 points3 points  (6 children)

          Go take some warm poop, smear it in your hair, then tell me you still want to be a farmer, lol.

          (I hate getting manure on my face or in my hair. Grrr!)

          [–]CleburnCO 1 point2 points  (5 children)

          When there are equal coal miners, garbage men, iron workers, crab fishermen, sewer technicians, and similar...we can talk about equality in shit jobs. Truly shitty manual labor jobs are virtually 100% male. Farming isn't dangerous unless you are stupid and I say that as an Ag major and third generation farmer. It can be physical...but unless you cut corners and do stupid things, you aren't getting hurt.

          [–]Willow-girl 1 point2 points  (3 children)

          You're correct that cutting corners can get you killed, but sometimes you can do everything as carefully as possible and still get into a jam. I was moving a fresh cow out of the close-up pen once ... I always removed the calf first as I figure it's safer than trying to part the dam from her calf. In this case the mother cow didn't give me any problems, but just as I was about to exit the pen, another cow who hadn't calved yet got agitated, came after me and backed me into a post, probably would have crushed my ribs if my boss hadn't been within shouting distance. Happened so fast I never saw it coming.

          Bulls also are notorious for giving you no trouble ... until they do. The only good bull comes in a straw AFAIC. Cows are big animals and can hurt you without meaning to. I've had a finger broken by a kicky heifer. There was no one around to take over for me, so I just splinted it with a couple of business cards and some duct tape and went on milking, lol. My bosses' wife had her arm broken years ago when they were still milking in tie stalls. Knew a guy back home who got kicked in the head by a heifer ... he survived but people said he was never the same after that.

          [–]Landry86 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Country Girl <3

          [–]Willow-girl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Yeah that's me! Boss and I were setting up cows tonight; he went to stick the needle in a first-calf heifer for her GnRH shot and I guess she kicked him in the chest! Don't know how she managed that but they can get creative sometimes. Say a prayer for us next Friday night when it's time to breed her ... lol.

          [–]LordThunderbolt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          "Knew a guy back home who got kicked in the head by a heifer ... he survived but people said he was never the same after that."

          I laughed so hard at that

          [–]Willow-girl 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          I agree that's true. And it's why I get a little annoyed when progressives vapor about women earning less than men!