35 Responses

  1. Clarence

    When you assume that ‘equalitarianism’ means identity politics you will of course get the sort of issues you mention in this post.
    But if all you want is equal treatment under the law and at the most an equal opportunity to succeed then none of this necessarily follows. There is no connection between ‘people should be treated equally socially and before the law’ and ‘all outcomes for people should be equal’.

    Sort of like the left’s redefinition of racism – to move it from a type of prejudice that might be done by individual or expressed by a law or laws into something that relies on systematic power to even have meaning – so you’ve apparently redefined equalitarianism to suit your own argument.

  2. Alcestis Eshtemoa

    Equality of opportunity is the same as equality of outcome at the end. It’s about following the narrative of atomized individualistic egalitarianism.

  3. Alcestis Eshtemoa

    That’s why this society invests so much in affirmative action, quotas, discrimination lawsuits, etc. Because the levying playing field (aka “equality of opportunity”) shows disparate effects and consequences in outcome, with people scratch their head thinking, “But, but, but, if people had the opportunity to be equal, wouldn’t they be equal? Why aren’t they still equal yet? Why, why, why?”

    This shows up again and again in various strands of liberalism (whether it be men and women, standards of beauty such as weight or asymmetry, different races and ethnicities, etc).

  4. Alcestis Eshtemoa

    The truth is that equality isn’t here, isn’t real and will never be true.

  5. Clarence

    That’s nice. But if you can’t treat individuals fairly permit me to say that I don’t think you are going to be very good at constructing a society that is fair either.
    And perceived injustice is always a primary reason that societies eventually fall, even if those objecting to the unfairness aren’t the main cause.

    I’m for “real” egalitarianism.
    At times we’ve almost gotten there. I can point to several places and times in my life where I was in groups or workplaces or games and everyone agreed the rules were fair.
    You are for “real” religion.
    Even if there is such a thing -which I sincerely doubt as applied to any of the world’s “Major” religions – good luck getting even five people to agree with you on what it is.

  6. Clarence

    Some stupid people – and some people for political reasons – may believe or pretend to believe what you say is correct.

    But do most people? If they do, then why aren’t all sports coed?

  7. Clarence

    Embracing unequal outcomes but equal opportunities is neither equalitarian nor egalitarian — it is simply a ruleset that favors the gifted. That is — rightly in my view — no more fair nor moral than a system which favors people who inherit wealth. And as such it is not embraced by any real equalitarian or egalitarian system.

    Sorry, Nova, but sports seem to be all about the gifted at most professional levels. Tiger Woods, Michael Jordon, Peyton Manning, ARod.
    Do you see any mass amount of protests about these people being ‘too good’, so we must change the rules to penalize them?

    Clearly, some people do want to go the Harrison Bergeron route, but I sincerely doubt most people do.

  8. Alcestis Eshtemoa

    which was focused on the sex-based lens.

    I’m glad you used the word sex instead of “gender”. Maybe it’s the Latin influence (and I won’t repeat myself), but there the word sex has a double simultaneous meaning (sex, as in procreation and having sex, but also means male/masculine sex and female/feminine sex).

  9. Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech

    Both are concerned about men being “straitjacketed” by traditional gender norms, for example.

    Paul Elam’s concern is how traditionalism is used as a vehicle of misandry against men. He has not attacked masculinity like Tom Matlack has nor has he told men that they need act more like women. It takes a lot of twisted logic to say that Elam and Matlack are similar in this area.

    Paul’s place has gone on a more left/libertarian bent in the past year or so, with the emphasis on “men’s (human) rights”, which is also in a sense trying to align itself with what the “purest equality” goals of feminism would have been, while generally viewing feminism, as it is in practice, as being hopelessly biased against men

    Since feminism is not about actual equality in any sense of the term as you say, how can Paul Elam be aligning himself with feminism in any way since he doesn’t believe that about feminism? You can’t have it both ways here.

    Both of them, in other words, are trying, in admittedly different ways, to “finish properly what feminism started” by “liberating men” or “recognizing men’s (human) rights” or “expanding/updating the definition of masculinity” or what have you.

    I seriously doubt Paul Elam cares about “updating the definition of masculinity”. He’s more concerned with equality before the law, and he definitely doesn’t believe “this is what feminism started”.

    I think what’s really going on is that Paul Elam is more concerned about making real world progress against what feminism has actually done to men. Most of this is due to feminist policy in government so this is where Paul Elam and other MRAs spend their time, not worrying about meaningless philosophical debates that produce no benefit for men.

  10. ray

    i’ve got a lot of good things to say about any group of people that stands up to feminism, and place themselves at risk to defend and free good men from the mancages, from legal harrassment by the gynocracy . . . heck they even called out some psychotic d.a. (redundant) back east, who figgered she was God cause nobody said different

    due credit for these, and other, good works by AVfM — well-done brothers

    but theyre v wrong about equalitarianism, egalitarianism, and the rest of the deceptive baggage of the enlightenment and modern (anti) “civil rights”

    people are NOT equal, the plainest observation reveals it

    men and women also are not equal, and never can be — again, obvious in their behaviors and cognitions . . . markedly different psychologies

    the whole egalitarian scam is effective bc it lures in BOTH bad AND good people

    m.r.a.’s tend to be highly ethical and honorable compared to the general population, so they are particularly susceptible to the “we can all be equal” rap

    hell paved with best intentions etc, — there’s a reason that FEMINISM had steadfastly championed equality and egalitee as mandatory ideals, and that reason is not in the interest of men, boys, or families

    equality sounds so good, sounds so right, but is counter to human nature, and always leads to authoritarianism and totalitarianism

    AVfM could sweep the planet, dominate political operations throughout the West, install Equalitarianism with a male-friendly and male-positive face everywhere, under strict controls. . . and thirty or fifty years later, y’all would be right back where you are now


    then others would have to do this all over again, assuming it could be done again, which is doubtful

    1. Clarence

      Could you do me a solid – don’t want to risk imputing anything to you – and give me an idea of just what actions MRA’s should be taking in your opinion? Mind you, I’m talking political actions as , unlike MGTOW, MRA is an explicitly political ideology.
      And as opposed to MRA’s what actions secular and religious (feel free if you answer to give different advice to each category or to give the same advice; I want your opinion if you will please share it) men who aren’t MRA’s should be taking in the current western societies?


      1. Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech

        I would like an answer to this question too. I don’t know if Paul Elam’s way is going to produce real world results or not, but I do know that attacking guys who are trying to do something with BS philosophy arguments while sitting on your hands will fail.

  11. Escoffier

    So, unsurprisingly, I have some thoughts on this.

    At the core here is the “problem of justice.” Which is to say, let’s take the easiest definition of justice and ignore the Socratic and other critiques which cast it into all kinds of doubt. Let’s begin with the one that most people most of the time would accept.

    Justice is “giving every man his due.” Those of you who need to may substitute “gender neutral” pronouns. That is, justice is the art of ensuring that each gets what he deserves, good or bad. The criminal deserves punishment; that is justice. The good man deserves rewards. The great man or savior of his people deserves the highest honors. And so on.

    The problem is that any conceivable practical way that you can organize society (or “the city” or “the state”), someone is going to get screwed by this formula. They will either not get what they deserve or they will be afflicted in ways they do not deserve or some combination of the two.

    THE perfect depiction of the tradeoff is to me Xenophon’s Cyropadeia. This is a “fairy tale” about Cyrus the Great that essentially communicates Xenophon’s political philosophy. “Persia” at the beginning of the book looks a lot like ancient Sparta, except improved, the biggest improvement being: no helots (slaves). BUT there is a rather large underclass of citizens who don’t partake in rule and who are more or less permanently poor. But at least they are free and are citizens. Many of these people are very talented and would make great rulers, generals, etc. but never get the chance because of what sociologists would today call “structural” inequality. However, for “Persia” to continue in strict adherence to its rather austere laws, with all their dedication to virtue (at least apparently), this is simply necessary.

    “Cyrus” takes over and transforms Persia into a great empire. In so doing, he needs first a very large army, which he recruits from among the commoners. Previously, on the nobles had been able to serve in the military. Then, he also needs captains and other very able men, whom he also recruits from among the most talented of the commoners. It’s made very clear that a great many of the nobles are simply dolts who don’t deserve, from any personal qualities, their wealth or position. These “new men” (to borrow a Roman phrase) become very useful to his rule and also quite rich and powerful in their own right.

    So, that is “justice,” right? Those who were undeservedly held back under the “old regime” now get their due in the new. Yes, but … it’s not that simple. There is a cost. The “new” Persia is a despotism. It’s flawed in all kinds of really awful ways.

    You might say that, so what, it’s surely possible to build a regime that allows for talent to find its level that is not a despotism. And that is possibly true. But without incurring ANY drawbacks that undermine justice in some way?

    Or look at Plato’s Republic, THE book on “justice.” There, “giving every man his due” turns out to depend on a natural order of rank. Some men are born to rule, some are born to fight, and the rest are born to farm or trade or practice the arts (shoe-making and the like, not necessarily painting; the Greek techne does not have the same connotation as our “art” which today tends to mean only “fine arts”). This is natural and innate. And, depending on their rank, the various men justly deserve different things. For part of justice is to give equally to those who are equal and unequally to those who are not equal. Unfortunately, only those born to rule are capable of recognizing to which rank other men belong. So they get to make the decisions and sort people into political ranks that reflect the natural ranks. And, since (obviously) lots of people are not going to accept this critically, especially those sorted into the bottom rungs, the people need to be told a myth or, literally, a lie, Plato’s famous “noble lie.”

    Needless to say, this idea was never put into practice anywhere and it’s an open question whether Plato even meant it seriously in the first place.

    Or, to turn to Aristotle, there are always at least two parts to any political community: the many and the few, and sometimes a third, the one. The many are the common people or the demos. The few are the aristocrats or the oligarchs. And the one is the king or the heroic founder/savior. Politics at its root is the competing claims to rule of these three parts. When any single one rules, the just claims of the others are to some extent abridged or denied.

    No one has figured out how to solve this question permanently. I would argue that the most successful attempt is the Constitution of 1787, which borrows quite a lot from Aristotle’s “mixed regime” in which all three parts participate, cooperate (to some extent) and check the others.

    However, it is the Declaration, on which the Constitution is based, which poses the problem: “All men are created equal.” Some take this to mean simply, “no titles of hereditary nobility.” And it does mean that but closer examination of the Founder’s thought reveals that it meant much more. Jefferson perhaps put it best in a letter in which he wrote that “May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?” (Letter to Adams, Oct. 28, 1813)

    In other words, he implicitly concedes, if not an order of rank, then at least a wide variation in “quality” among men, but he wants every man to get his due. No one to be held back but no one to be unduly or unjustly raised up either. And not just as a matter of justice to individual men, but as just for the whole political community, which wants and needs (or should want and need) the best to occupy the most important positions.

    Now clearly it has not worked out this way. And why not? You, B, seem to believe the fault lay simply in the original premise. I don’t believe that. I do, however, think that the original premise has proved itself to be open to two fundamental lines of attack or rot. One is simply the “cycle of regimes” or the specific way in which every regime, eventually, fails. In even a perfectly mixed regime, one element will eventually come to prominence among the others and then take over. In ours, “democracy” was always dominant from the get-go. In fact the Founders had to be somewhat careful in the way that they discussed the no-democratic elements of the American regime. Hamilton was occasionally not so careful and got himself into trouble. Anyway, the point is, we are rotting in essentially the same way the classics said that democracies always rot, and that includes ancient democracies not based on the egalitarian ideal.

    The second is “modernity,” about which I have had my say at length in another place.

  12. Julian O'Dea

    It is good to raise these fundamental points.

    Modern people accept a priori that men and women are in some sense equal. But there is no real evidence for this, apart from equality at the level of the soul.

    One could argue for equality from the Bible, for example, or for female inferiority. I think one could make a good case either way.

  13. Julian O'Dea

    I also think that accepting female equality cedes too much ground to feminists. Let them prove they are equal.

  14. John Rambo

    Arianna Pattek, a racist, man-hating feminist bitch

    In the above link, you will find evidence of her committing the CRIME of discrimination based on a man’s race.

    I have included her personal email, the email of her academic advisor, link to her Facebook account, link to her two blogs, and her pictures as well.

    I suggest you men write to her through her email, Facebook, and blogs, and tell her that you are reporting her for the CRIME of discrimination against men.

    American women are really evil bitches.

  15. Dave

    This article is fucking right on. Too many MRAs are afraid to say what this author says.

  16. Alcestis Eshtemoa

    I personally don’t see any hope for striving for any kind of reform at all. That’s a separate question from whether we OUGHT to strive for reform even if we see no hope for success. A very strong case can be made that we do indeed have such an obligation.

    We may have the obligation, it is the right thing to do, but it isn’t the best thing to do and won’t lead to the picture we’re looking for. Reform is long gone (too much corruption and strength) and the modern enlightened liberal system would attack to protect itself (combining the female instinct/psychology of self preservation foremost, with the secondly male like reductionist modern technological impulse as a weapon).

    The best recourse is the creation, the design, of new parallel societies. But even this recourse needs to be done underground, out of sight, without much interference from above (not above as in the universe, the skies and God, but above as in the decaying, rotting civilization). While sprinkles of a disease aren’t bad and can strengthen an immune system, there’s a point where it goes downhill to full blown contamination and that’s where it gets dangerous.

    The biggest problem wouldn’t be getting, starting and achieving something, somewhere, somehow. The problem would be how to keep it that way (not getting destroyed by enemies or bystanders brainwashed by the system unconsciously), protecting the stuff, while healing the infected areas of society, civilization (which is about most places nowadays unfortunately) at the same time.

    Most of all don’t dialogue, or argue with modern enlightened liberals. It almost like the Borg or “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. It doesn’t matter what you do or what you say. You are “them” (human) and they hate/disdain/fear you (consciously or unconsciously it doesn’t matter) and want you gone. They have the frame, they win. It’s a lose-lose game.

  17. Alcestis Eshtemoa

    Opps. His comment, the one I was replying, wasn’t in italics. My apologies. The text below should be in italics:

    “I personally don’t see any hope for striving for any kind of reform at all. That’s a separate question from whether we OUGHT to strive for reform even if we see no hope for success. A very strong case can be made that we do indeed have such an obligation.”

  18. Different T

    @ Veritas

    On Rollo’s site, you posted this comment regarding hypergamy. You did not offer a definition as you did not want to “re-hash” old ground.

    In response to this post, I replied:

    Hypergamy: a woman’s natural preference for a male that is of higher
    status than other men and also higher status than herself.

    Based on what hierarchy? Many manosphere sites take for granted that
    it is based on (in a feminized society, the easily counterfeited and imitated
    behaviors indicating) social dominance.

    Consider that the definition used is vital to the integrity
    and predictive power of the model.
    This definition seems to consider female
    sexuality as taking place in a vacuum apart from other biological
    considerations, instead of as an interplay between many competing
    considerations. Specifically, it applies to a world of material abundance, present security, and a society which holds the value set of the feminine imperative. Considering this is supposedly a biological dynamic, it only applies to very specific environments. It would not apply in environments where provisioning and security are leading factors in mate choice; it would not apply where males made the decisions regarding mate choice; and it would not apply in societies that do not hold egalitarianism as ideal (in other words, almost the entirety of human civilization).

    The usual application of this definition (supposedly of a biological dynamic) requires that decisions and behaviors influenced by something other than “social dominance” be viewed as an unnatural “barrier,” “buffer,”or “wall” to hypergamy. Arranged marriage? Outside the “biological dynamic” and merely a “barrier.” Monogamy? Outside the “biological dynamic” and merely a “buffer.” Marriage laws? Merely a “wall” to the “biological dynamic.” Choosing a mate based on provisioning? Another “buffer” to the “true” dynamic.

    Hypergamy is as equally destructive to civilized society

    Transitive property yields: a woman’s natural preference for a male that is of higher status is [omitted] destructive to civilized society. Are you sure about that?

    If your issue is women not honoring marriage contracts, state that.

    If your issue is the state incentivizing single motherhood and divorce, state that.

    If your issue is society normalizing and promoting the feminine imperative, state that.

    But stating “a woman’s natural preference for a male that is of higher status is
    [omitted] destructive to civilized society,” is going to lead you toward, if
    not directly to, egalitarianism.

    Do you find this analysis valuable? Do you consider it related to:

    Get the philosophy wrong, and you will get the wrong result.

    First things matter.

  19. shmiggen

    Well, the one certainty contained within this post is that when women do look at the apex, they really do assume all men are in on the party. That is an excellent observation, and should at the very least warn men not to waste their energy trying to convince women, or feminists, that there is a bias against men. They simply will not believe it.

  20. Escoffier

    B, can you send me an email to the address from which I post? (I assume you can see it.) I want to send you a doc that you may want to post.


  21. LastMarguerite

    I have noticed you don’t monetize your site, don’t waste your traffic,
    you can earn extra cash every month because you’ve got hi quality content.
    If you want to know how to make extra $$$, search
    for: Mertiso’s tips best adsense alternative

Leave a Reply