It has been said over and over, on this forum and on other blogs; women want it both ways.

They want to have all the rights that men enjoy while retaining all their special, woman only, privileges and definitely don't want their share of the responsibility. Now, we sit opposed to this, attempting to reveal the inherent selfishness and unfairness of these demands. My question now is going to be; which way do you guys think we should go?

Do we allow women to retain all the same rights as us but force them to accept equal responsibility and strip them of their privileges as females? Or do we return to the old ways, take away women's equal status but allow them to keep their unaccountability and female privileges?

For myself, I advocate the latter option. This is due in large part to my belief that it is the only maintainable model. The shit parts of being a man are born of necessity, they can never be eradicated. Even if men and women were, as of tomorrow, equal, i mean really, truly equal, it would make no difference. When a real war came around, no matter how much legislature was in place it would still be men marching off to die. Nothing is ever going to change this. If a house is burning down and there is someone trapped inside, it doesn't matter how 'equal' the sexes are, all the heads will turn to the nearest man to go in and risk his life.

I believe the old ways are best, they are natural, effective. Simply the way things were meant to be, at least that is my opinion.

I would be interested to hear what the rest of you think on this matter, should we be striving for true equality or recognizing the inherent inequality of men and women?

This is the best question I’ve seen in some time. You have a nose for the key to an issue OO!

I am like you in that I think it must be many steps back to a balance found in history, philosophy and theology (using these sources as our guide).
Yet many men, and even the few reasonable women, will not go along with this for the business community have set up a system for the obsession (on the part of the public at large) to the new fashion as a God (trendy victims new age inc.), This was and is done so it may have a steady stream of effeminate customers thinking they are going on new journeys (that are merely effeminate reevaluations of the self- and materialist object collecting). Men think too much and buy less, and therefore we have much allied against any effort we may undertake.

Therefore we must give effeminates all the equality they can handle in a completely pitiless way, and under no circumstances allow the French version of chivalry to rear its distorted ugly ahead ever again at an organizational level. As for one-man-one-women it is up to the man to find a way by his own ideas ( though we can help here with our ideas that he must choose to follow). Then when the effeminates come asking for the old French way we should refuse these overtures with extreme prejudice. Their offers will instead be met by an cooperative effort of MRA organizations with a more English speaking honor-centered code, that will have both philosophical and theological principles worked out between the men organizations involved. We have a MRA think tank for this purpose.


Once this is introduced it should still have the ability to reintroduce the Gender War again at a moments notice, if the establishment or effeminates try to reintroduce their best of both worlds. Their indirect nature means they will forever continue to do this so any organization must be permanent and be free from government, companies and effeminate influence so as to be able to enforce some or all of a best of a male/ female checks and balanced system. Effeminates therefore must not be in its ranks and therefore like-minded women should have there own organization to work with us separately, and if this female cooperative organization becomes distorted it can be abandoned for a new complimentary organization of virtuous women instead of the attention whores we see dominate today. Women must join such an organization for the ideas and not to meet men. This is why so many sepatate the sexes so as to allow the males not to be overwhelmed by the majority of effeminates.

I look forward to your insights on this very important question

I also think the old ways are better when fathers ran the house the way it stands now you have two people with different goals running around trying to acheive their agendas ahead of their mates kinda like democrats and republicans here in the states and it works about as well. But sadly I think it is too late for that so I'll have to say we will have to take away the extra priveliges and make them accountable for their actions. That is the only one that will work.

I agree, the step 2 would be better, but it is not possible under the present conditions in the Western world.

I think, we should go ahead with step 1 'same rights, no privilegs, same responsibility' - legally seen, this is not so difficult to fight it out, as the basic law is on the side of the man. (regardless to gender, race, religion...)

No prison for the same crime for women, but only for men? This is not equal...
Alimony for women, who are earning the same as men? This is not equal...
Financial support only for problems related to medical problems of females?
This is not equal...and so on...
Women day, but no men day? This is not equal...
Gender-specific tax (men pay more, women pay less) this is not equal...

If such complaints and lawsuits are filed correctly, governments and courts have to deal with them, if feminists like that or not.
What is missing, is still a strong organization, which is dealing with men's equality problems...

I noticed in some feminist countries, women try to find 'shelter' by considering women same as children (like UNICEF Sweden calls itself to present children AND women) - again, men should complain, because women of full age are no children...

The most important message from men against feminism should be to attack financial resources...feminism is a parasite, which cannot exist without receiving financial support 'from somewhere' - often out of public money...

OK, so let them know, that if you support feminists, you should also support MRA...or if you do not like that, the country should use this public money for something else...
Men should complain about it.

Unfortunately men remain silent, but they should attack feminism out of the question of finance and equality, courts might be kept rather busy to correct that imbalance.

Generally people will try to find their niche in society and achieve the successes that fit their needs and abilities. Very few people will achieve all of their dreams but we are free to make many choices about our own lives. We call it the "pursuit of happiness," and it is considered a fundamental right in Western culture. Historically it has been more of an ideal than a fundamental right, with all of the wars, slavery and other affronts to human rights. But we hope and try to make it so everyone has the opportunity to pursue their dreams and interests as long as they do not interfere with others' rights.

Along with the pursuit of happiness, there is also duty, responsibility and maybe even that quaint idea called honor. That is what too many people forget, and unfortunately feminism gave women permission to demand their happiness while considering the duties that come with their choices to be demeaning. Westerners are obsessed with their happiness, yet it often proves to be as elusive as the end of a rainbow.

But I'm going on a tangent here so back to the topic: I believe the "old ways" probably interfere with the women's right of the pursuit of happiness. But I'm not exactly sure what "old ways" you mean, but I assume you mean women's participation in public life, jobs and education are limited and they are forced into a position of economic dependency. The "old ways" caused a lot of resentment which fueled the monstrous growth of feminism, so it has already proven to not be a viable option in a society that values human rights. Gender equality is the way, but also taking into consideration the biological differences between the sexes. For example it doesn't make sense to grant men maternity leave (I think US law grants 3 months unpaid leave) but they should at least get some family leave. And women generally shouldn't be working in some occupations unless they are exceptionally strong.

i agree, moving back to the past is backward.

there is a third way! let women keep all their privilidges, but extend them to men too..

i totally disagree, i think men need equal if not slightly less (due to birth) maternity leave as women. men are great with kids, and they are being robbed of the chance to develop intimate relationships with their children at the moment. When you have a new born baby it puts lots of stress on both partners, if the male was around it would mean they could both concentrate on the job at hand. at the moment they just leave the women to sort it out, and then get angry when she has no time for them when they get home. its not productive for relationships.

FruitCake wrote -- "there is a third way! let women keep all their privilidges, but extend them to men too..."

Shit! Just when I was completely prepared to dismiss this women as a stereotypical gold-digging entitlement princess --

she drops this rhetorical bomb!

OK FC, please write more about your "Third Way."

Would it involve women being drafted to die in needless wars?

Would it provide men with reliable birth control?

Would it give a prospective father legal rights over whether his female partner could abort his child without his consent?

Would it give battered men the confidence that calling 911 would not lead to their arrest?

FruitCake -- you have exposed your theoretical intelligence. A bold vision for gender equality!

Now, "please" girl -- (homage to ancient chivalry) -- use it to convince me that you are a woman with integrity.

Is appeasement going to work, I wonder? It seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure.

The problem is that if women (and their male facilitators) let the pressure off, they're likely to lose a lot of the advantages they've gained. That's the way it goes. Men are not voluntarily giving up their jobs, assets, homes, families, social status, influence, it's being taken from them by force...

I disagree with both Myce and Fruitcake on this issue, which is the inescapable norm.

On the one hand, Myce contends that women were disaffected (presumably for thousands of years), and then suddenly began the march toward feminism.

This is wholly incorrect. Women and men both were happier under the traditional system of families and the children were actually raised with moral values and a sense of purpose. The real reason that feminism exploded around the globe the way it did, was not because women were unhappy, but because they were TOLD they were unhappy. Marxist feminism was utilized to create world wide socialism - and this the cultural invaders have been steadily achieving as governments around the world grow fatter, and all the little ones become wards of the state.

The real impetus for the growth of feminism was a few disaffected women, who embraced a philosophy of death and destruction via Marx.

As to Fruit Cake's suggestion, well that's just plain insane. How on earth would you transfer the percs and priveleges of the feminine to men? Would men suddenly start helping one another with groceries, or walking one another to their cars at night? Or will we absolve one another of all responsibility and refuse to hit one another once struck? Will each of us believe that we are entitled to be looked after, cared for and coddled? Will men stay home with the children, and receive the children 50% of the time in all custody disputes? Will special quotas be developed to help men regain their lost numbers and momentum in academia? Will the police run be made shorter, and the loads that firemen carry made lighter for us as well?

Will the entire population be absolved from warfare, and will sunny little butterflies flutter in the sky only to perch at the end of unicorn horns?

Obviously I don't see this happening, so the options are really just 1 and 2.

Obviously option 2 is the better option. Women staying home raising kids would be a much needed boost to morality. It would reinforce the dying family unit and strengthen the bond that women and men once shared working together towards a common goal. Children, no longer wards of the state, could grow up to be thinking individuals replete with conscience and all. The shuffling foot steps of lonely heart broken singles would disappear, replaced by the sounds of children in playgrounds where they've grown silent.

Still, option 1 is the only realistic option. Women believe that their lives are better under feminism, even though they've worsened substantially. Now they're lonely, stressed out and miserable trying to work 24/7 to make ends meet. Your average 50's father earned more than two working parents do today. The whole thing was a trap, but women haven't clued into that yet, and since they are being told who they are day in and day out by a leftist biased media, I don't seem them waking up from the dream anytime before it's much to late.

So that said, I would opt for option 1. Can't do 42 pushups? Too bad, next! Can't do the run in under 15 minutes? Too bad, next! Can't lift the 200lb dummy and bring it to safety outside the burning building? Too bad, next!
No more quotas or set asides. No more lowering standards to bring in more women. Women entering the military go to the front lines with everyone else.

It's time to end this farce.

The way to go is to create a better woman, Weird Science style. I don't care if this is done via biotechnology, robots, virtual reality or whatever.

Or maybe a pill could be invented to cure men of their femaddiction. Or turn them gay.

If I really had to choose between Patriarchy and Equality, I'd choose Patriarchy. I wouldn't like it one bit, stupid backward system that it is, but I have no faith left in the ability of 90% of women to deal responsibly with the freedom that comes with Equality.

Such are the wages of feminism. The illusion of love has been shattered. Beware of the truth, for it shall burn you.

Or simpler still, reduce your sex drive. If you do that you also reduce 90% of the grip that society has on you. Sex makes you unfree.

Feminism is revolutionary overkill (much like communism was an overkill when all that was needed were some decent labor and social laws). It would have been perfectly possible to adjust the Patriarchy to modern needs, without completely disrupting the existing order. Contrary to popular belief men are not so unwilling to give the women what they ask for. After all, every family man wants his wife and children to be happy. The image of the man as a selfish oppressor is a hateful caricature. They could have worked something out without all the destructiveness.

How very true. That's why we are sold the myth of "love" in our culture, because in reality it's slipping away. That's why they say "I believe in love". You have to believe in it, because you can't actually see much of it anywhere, just like other things that people believe in.

Marxism is based on distrust. You cannot rely on anybody, you have to be independent. Man and wife, even parents and children if possible, have to deal with each other on the basis of negotiation. As if they were strangers. We call each other partners, as if we're in business together.

The problem is that you cannot effectively negotiate with somebody and at the same time be generous, trusting and forgiving. Negotiation and equality force people to keep distance from each other. It interferes with the ability to bond emotionally.

Why am I not surprised to read that more and more couples are sleeping in different bedrooms, and are having very little sex.

The way people dance in the discotheque. On their own.