The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

What’s Wrong With ‘Equality’?

Posted on | January 2, 2016 | 61 Comments

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”

Redstockings, 1969

“Woman’s biology oppresses her only when she relates to men. The basis of the inequality of the sexes here is seen as the inequality inherent in heterosexual intercourse as a result of sex-specific anatomy. To transcend or avoid this in personal life by having sexual relations only with women — lesbianism — eliminates the gender-based underpin­nings of sexual inequality in this view. . . . Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)

“By demonizing males and stigmatizing heterosexuality . . . feminism seeks to create equality, but what it actually creates is decadence and chaos.”
Robert Stacy McCain, “Feminism: Death Cult Chaos,” Dec. 30, 2015

One of the fundamental principles of logic is that you cannot reach a true conclusion if your argument is based on a false premise. Feminists have been proving this for nearly 50 years.

It should have been obvious from the moment the Women’s Liberation Movement emerged in the late 1960s that feminists would ultimately fail to bring about the “equality” they promised, and that this radical movement would inflict enormous damage to American society. Here we are, decades later, and young feminists who were not even born when this movement began are vehemently insisting that they are victims of an “oppression” for which “all men” are to blame. What feminists now demand — as a bare minimum, sine qua non — is that Hillary Rodham Clinton (Wellesley College, Class of 1969; Yale Law School, Class of 1973) be elected President of the United States, and feminists will condemn everyone who opposes Hillary’s election as a misogynist.

The Bernie Sanders campaign is a token resistance to the foregone conclusion of the Clinton nomination, and it does not matter who the Republican Party nominates as its candidate. In 2016, feminists will attempt to convince the electorate that the only people who will vote Republican on Nov. 8 are those who hate women. Anticipating this attack (it has been evident for many months now) it is necessary for conservatives to understand what feminism actually means, so that they can explain to the American people why “equality” is wrong.

This requires an argument that is as difficult to make in 21st-century America as it was in 18th-century France. Long before the outbreak of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, Edmund Burke foresaw the danger inherent in the premise of the radical rhetoric of “equality.” That the revolution ended in the establishment of a military dictatorship under Napoleon should suffice to prove that Burke’s warnings were prophetic. Furthermore, as must be obvious to any student of history, the radicalism of Jacobin France was the inspiration of Marxist socialism, which in turn inspired the Bolshevik Revolution, which led to the dictatorship of Josef Stalin. Over and over, we see the same lesson repeated: Radicals promise “equality,” and the end result is tyranny. Only a fool would expect feminism to deviate from this precedent, and what we see on university campuses today — where opposition to feminism is effectively prohibited — is a foreshadowing of what we might expect under the regime of President Hillary Clinton.

 

Explaining what is wrong with the politics of “equality” is never easy. Everyone can think of some unfairness they have experienced in life, and it is easy to accept “equality” as a synonym for fairness, which is why a political rhetoric that promises “equality” has such an enduring popular appeal. It takes a lot more thought, and a consideration of consequences that are not apparent in the superficial discourse of campaign slogans, to realize that (a) measures intended to create “equality” are generally both harmful to society and expensive to taxpayers, and (b) “equality” itself is ultimately an impossible goal. Of course, if you are willing to run up a national debt of nearly $19 trillion, the expense of “equality” may be something taxpayers can ignore. However, as Margaret Thatcher said, the trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money, and not even the wealthiest nation on Earth can forever postpone paying its debts. Perhaps there are those who would justify such reckless spending in the name of “equality,” yet we are told that the gap between the rich and poor keeps growing, despite the many trillions of dollars that have been spent to help the poor since Lyndon Johnson inaugurated his “War on Poverty” policy in the 1960s. When you listen to Democrats talk, it seems as if they have forgotten what Ronald Reagan said in his 1988 State of the Union address:

My friends, some years ago, the Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won. Today the Federal Government has 59 major welfare programs and spends more than $100 billion a year on them. What has all this money done? Well, too often it has only made poverty harder to escape. Federal welfare programs have created a massive social problem. With the best of intentions, government created a poverty trap that wreaks havoc on the very support system the poor need most to lift themselves out of poverty: the family. Dependency has become the one enduring heirloom, passed from one generation to the next, of too many fragmented families.

By attempting to make government a substitute for the family, liberal anti-poverty programs “created a massive social problem” that Democrats are now evidently determined to make even worse.

The Democrat Party is committed to feminism, and feminism is committed to the destruction of the family. Feminists have spent decades denouncing marriage and motherhood as “patriarchal structures” by which “all men have oppressed women.” What is their motive?

The feminist myth that their movement is about rectifying an unjust inequality is exposed as a self-serving lie once you begin examining the biographies of the leading proponents of feminist ideology. Catharine MacKinnon, for example, is the daughter of a Republican congressman and judge; her family’s wealth enabled her to attend elite schools (Smith College and Yale University) and to spend 18 years writing her grand opus, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. It is astonishing to read, in the preface of her 1989 book (p. xiv), that the first chapter “was written in 1971-72, revised in 1975, and published in Signs in 1982.” Only an extraordinary sort of financial security can explain how a writer could be able to wait a full decade between writing the first draft of an essay and its initial publication. During the intervening years, MacKinnon published The Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979) just two years after graduating from Yale Law School. This Marxist daughter of a Republican father was able to make herself an “expert” on the problems of “working women” precisely because she never had to work a day in her life.

The secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money. It was her remarkable socioeconomic privilege that was the basis of MacKinnon’s lifelong assault on “male supremacy,” and we see a similar pattern in the lives of many other feminists. Consider this statement:

“We are angry because we are oppressed by male supremacy. We have been f–ked over all our lives by a system which is based on the domination of men over women, which defines male as good and female as only as good as the man you are with. It is a system in which heterosexuality is rigidly enforced and Lesbianism rigidly suppressed.”

So wrote Ginny Berson in the 1972 cover story of the first issue of The Furies, the lesbian-feminist newspaper published by a radical Washington, D.C.-based collective founded by Charlotte Bunch. Both of these women were the beneficiaries of elite education. Charlotte Bunch graduated from Duke University in 1966, and Ginny Berson graduated in 1967 from Mount Holyoke College, one of the prestigious “Seven Sisters,” the all-women’s colleges that were analogous to the Ivy League, back when elite schools like Harvard, Yale and Columbia were all-male. Annual tuition for the 2015-2016 academic year is $49,341 at Duke and $43,886 at Mount Holyoke, so the claim that privileged women like Charlotte Bunch and Ginny Berson were “oppressed” and “f–ked over” by “male supremacy” was as manifestly absurd in 1972 as it is today.

Feminism is a movement led by privileged women who seek to gain money and power for themselves by advocating an ideology which aims to destroy the family as the basis of society. The consequences of such a movement’s success will not be “equality,” but rather the destruction of all hope for happiness for many millions of American women who do not have the advantages of wealth, social privilege and elite education that feminists like Hillary Clinton take for granted. As Burke said of the French Revolution, feminists “therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things,” and anyone who thinks that President Hillary Clinton will do anything else is in for a rude awakening.

Will America drink the Kool-Aid of “equality”?




 

Comments

  • RKae

    Where does anyone get the idea that Hillary is a strong woman?

    She’s a female cuckold who aided and abetted her cheating husband.

  • robertstacymccain

    Criticize Hillary? Obviously, you are WEAK MAN who wants to DOMINATE WOMEN!

  • Finrod Felagund

    The answer to their meme?

    Strong women don’t need feminism.

  • RS

    As trite as it’s become to say, the Progressive Left has been successful in defining “equality” with reference to results as opposed to opportunity. In the way back, when I had Civics in sixth grade, we read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and discussed the unalienable rights. (This was before the NEA destroyed public education.) Our teacher made it very clear that we all had the right to pursue happiness not be happy. In other words, live free and give it your best shot, win or lose. That’s the philosophy we’ve lost.

  • http://www.frombearcreek.com/ Animal

    Grabbed this a while back from “Objectivist Answers” at http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/2048/why-is-egalitarianism-bad. This sums things up better than I could:

    “Equality is not itself a value. Equal injustices are equally as unjust as solo ones are.

    Equality doesn’t add to a good state, nor does it, per se, ameliorate a bad one. This is true, moreover, regarding what nature delivers to the individual, what he creates and produces, and what he obtains in whatever fashion from others, as [Ayn] Rand succinctly illustrates.

    Inequality, in *certain* contexts [emphasis added], is a symptom of injustice, and it is solely through that role that equality has earned its huge reputation and rhetorical power to suggest something good and valuable. Equality under the law is one sign that injustices, regarding those laws, are not taking place. (It is only one sign, and it misses systematic injustices.) It is only in those same contexts, for the same reason, that inequality can be termed undesirable.

    Egalitarianism drops the proper context of the term and ignores its being a negative characteristic (it means that certain injustices are not occurring) and makes it into an icon for justice and individual rights.

    Objectivists oppose it as being a false and pernicious ideal, for the above reasons and because its implementation constitutes unending injustices, and is a major premise behind policies that offend and reduce individual rights.

    Both in logic and in practice, the term is worthless for any genuinely philanthropic goal.”

  • http://www.frombearcreek.com/ Animal

    I’d love to see any man (including yr. obdt.) try to dominate my own dear, sweet Mrs. Animal. She’d have his guts for garters.

  • RS

    And right on cue, via Instapundit we have this tidbit demonstrating that inevitably, the pursuit of unattainable “equality” leads to directly into the crapper.

  • AwD

    Catharine MacKinnon obviously never had PMS a day in her life if she could write such an obviously BS statement about women’s biology. *muttered imprecations*

    I recently read a good book on the history of equality – “Equality: The Impossible Quest” by Martin von Creveld.

  • http://woodstermangotwood.blogspot.com/ Woodsterman

    Is it proper etiquette to bow when speaking Hillary’s name?

  • rambler

    What exactly do they mean by “equal” anyway? None of us have the same wants or needs, so petitioning to gov to make things “equal” in some way is a recipe for disaster. We’re supposed to be equal under the law until some group of special snotflakes makes a big stink for special treatment.

  • https://twitter.com/Mthomps016 M. Thompson

    “Equality” demands a procrustean solution. They do not truely desire it, but gynarchy.

  • Zhytamyr

    I take issue with the comparison of Hillary! and Jim Jones. Jim had at least some charisma, and likely murdered fewer people.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland
  • Fail Burton

    The Burke quote is pretty right on the money. Feminists come in and think the 50th floor they’re building doesn’t really need the electricity, conduits, architecture and general know how of the other 49 floors they can’t and won’t and never have produced.

    I kinda compare it to major league baseball players who bring nothing to a ball park but themselves but want the money the owners who manufacture and provide everything from balls and uniforms to stadiums have. But even there the difference is the players have actual talent. Introduce diversity and shifting strikes zone dependent on gender and race and you destroy baseball in a single day. Lesbian feminism will destroy anything it touches, including itself if it ever does come to control those other 49 floors. The most likely destruction would be by invasion or some other monumental failure in war, with slave pens if not being thrown off that 50th floor as the ultimate destination.

    Gay feminism walks into institutions it can’t, won’t and never has created and maintained. That’s why intersectionalists can’t create characters anyone wants to read about; they prefer a Muslim Miss Marvel, a female Thor, a black James Bond, a gay Green Lantern. They can’t create Star Wars, only infiltrate it. They won’t occupy draft offices, only dean’s offices; more reward, less bloodshed. Let the patriarchy do that – and everything else while you’re at it. The reason you see so much of that in soft pop culture and not anywhere else is that Mars rovers and great canals don’t care and don’t know anything about a “heterosexual matrix,” just what works. Success defines itself, as does failure. Mess with that and you mess with everything.

  • Fail Burton

    Right. Equal opportunity, not outcome. The latter is a destroyer and a liar.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    So, I must be a sexist and misogynist because I’m supporting Carly Fiorina, right?

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Misogyny! MISOGYNY!!!

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    You have to take a knee and call her “my Grace”

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Now imagine that for Olympic awards.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Yes of course.

  • OrangeEnt

    Equality, Yes!!!! I believe Hillary Clinton is equally criminal, equally corrupt, and equally evil as any leftist man!!!! Er, that’s what they mean, right?

  • http://woodstermangotwood.blogspot.com/ Woodsterman

    Thank you, I will not slip up again.

  • DukeLax

    When is someone going to come out and start talking about the elephant in the living room….the massive and growing matriarchal underclass of poor, un-educated, drug addicted children who are forced into matriarchal schools where 14 year old cool boys are sex toys for 30 years old infant-women who think their teaching position gives them a chance to re-live their high school years??

  • Quartermaster

    Though quite accurate, that’s most likely not what they mean.

  • Quartermaster

    We already know you’re raciss or something, why not sexist too?

  • mole

    Patriarchy is just the white CIS male code word for “shit that works”

  • Fail Burton

    More like cishet scum.

  • mole

    Equality for all, until Im on top..

    Its funny RSM mentions starting from crap will lead to crap.
    Marxism starts from a never-seen-in-history fairytale time of complete communal society as well.

    I should get one of those abortion shirts and wear it around the child support agencies offices. Either than or get myself a “No gestation without male consent ones done up.
    Because equality.

  • Fail Burton

    “Wingnut Cis Lords Forced Me Into a Gender Binary Matrix of Colonial Genocide” by Zhirzhy Zhirnose.

  • robertstacymccain

    Here’s the thing: Intellectuals and other such college-educated office-dwellers easily imagine “gender equality” because, why not? If all you are doing is sitting in front of a computer, then there is no obvious reason why men and women cannot equally sit around in front of computers.

    What is omitted from that calculation, of course, is the vast numbers of people who aren’t college-educated and who don’t work office jobs. Also omitted, however, is that not everything one might do while sitting in front of a computer is equal in value to what someone else might do. The sociology major and the software engineer may both sit in front of computers, but the engineer’s work is more highly valued in the marketplace.

    There are many other such problems with the egalitarian project, but my point is that these problems (which are so numerous one could never list them all) tend to be invisible from the perspective of a Yale Law student whose rich Republican father can afford to send her to grad school more or less permanently. What does a Catharine MacKinnon know of the lives of my father, my brothers, my wife, my sons, my daughters? None of us have the privileges that Judge MacKinnon’s wealth provided his daughter, and who is she to lecture us? What great deed has she accomplished, or what evidence do we have of her moral superiority, that we should accept her as our tutor?

    Daddy’s money can’t buy you my respect.

  • RS

    It’s upper class guilt. She knows everything she has is the result of someone else’s hard work and that fact makes her feel like dirt. So her guilt metastasizes into agitating for the destruction of society, as if such agitation is the equivalent of virtue. (See you prior post of a day ago.) The funny thing with these types is that they all have the same reaction as the Rich Young Ruler when given the answer: “Sell all your stuff, give it the poor and follow Me.” They disappear.

  • Jason Lee

    Not even equal opportunity. Some will have more opportunity than others.

  • https://youtu.be/h82D5ZvcALM CrustyB

    So…does this mean I don’t have to stand anymore when a lady enters the room?

  • https://youtu.be/h82D5ZvcALM CrustyB

    Yes, and don’t forget to place your elbows on the examination table and try to relax.

  • Pingback: What’s Wrong With ‘Equality’? | Living in Anglo-America()

  • mole

    You think you are being funny but….

    The Dynamics of a Racialized, Gendered, Ethnicized, and Economically Stratified Society: Understanding the Socio-Economic Status of Women in Zimbabwe

    Is a real thing..

    http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/bes/20-years-of-feminist-economics

    and..

    An End to Job Mobility on the Sales Floor: The Impact of Department Store Cost Cutting on African-American Women, 1970–2000

    Be sure to have a look at that link, its full of topics you never knew needed a taxpayer funded investigation.

  • Daniel Freeman

    We need something that drives home the point that feminism is actually bad for weak women.

    And anyway, “strong woman” is code for “crybully”, since feminism is a cargo cult of masculinity.

  • Daniel Freeman

    Feminism is a strength test writ large. Women don’t feel safe, and they want to make sure that there is a strong patriarchy that can protect them. So they attack their patriarchy to make sure that it’s stronger than them. We need to give them what they really want and shut them down.

  • Daniel Freeman

    How dare you! Carly Fiorina is a strong, independent woman, and doesn’t need your infantilizing support. Fiend. I denounce you!

  • Jason Lee

    Yes. Feminism is the biggest sh!t test in the history of mankind. It’s time to tame the shrews.

  • Daniel Freeman

    I think it means that she has to stand out of respect when a gentleman enters the room? I don’t know. Equality doesn’t make any sense, because we are not the same, and it is better for us to respect each other by respecting our differences.

  • Fail Burton

    Mr. McCain has done a remarkable job of showing how a bizarre cult whose credos were built out of thin air by a handful of mentally ill lesbians using fake academic semantics and rhetoric has mainstreamed its hate speech into the public arena by using Jim Crow and women’s suffrage as a Trojan Horse to push its twin Holy Grails of curing heterosexuality and reducing the footprint of white males wherever they are found.

    When you have the President of the U. S. repeating false rape stats and the Dept. of Education acting on those false stats to run an extortion scheme on higher education and noted lesbian radical Charlotte Bunch running off to China with Hillary Clinton to push U.N. initiatives that shows the results of a dedication to a con game now 50 years in the making.

    The “intersectional” arm of this cult has also been running extortion schemes at higher education through Black Lives Matters. The clue there is BLM manifestos invariably include the “marginalized.” In Third Wave-speak that means anyone who’s not a straight white male.

    This cult has relentlessly targeted venues originally aimed at young people with complaints about a new Dr. Who being white, and Game of Thrones being “too white” and “geared towards white patriarchy.” Video games need less of “toxic masculinity,” a “performed” ritual of oppression concocted by innately misogynistic males in pre-history. Comics need more gays and non-whites, more Muslims and fewer genocidal Christians. Star Wars has been infected with personal appeals from SF authors to include more gays and the now most awards-honored SF novel in history was literally promoted into the stratosphere because it addressed the secret pronoun cure to heterosexuality. Curing heterosexuality and reducing the footprint of the morally inferior and actively hostile straight white male goes by the term “diversity,” yet another innocent word twisted into an Orwellian circular black hole to disguise this racial/sexual culling of the herd.

    The unintended effects of proto-gender feminist Simone de Beauvoir have been as influential on America as has the foundational text of Frankenstein on science fiction.

  • maryqalbritton

    ?my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet?….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    4ekv……….
    ??
    ??? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsDeko/GetPaid/98$hourly?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    NO. You are still supposed to show respect for a lady, but, given that lady and feminist are mutually exclusive terms, you needn’t stand — and probably should fart — when a feminist enters the room.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    Equality under the law means, or at least should mean, that everyone is treated the same by the law. It does not mean the equality of outcomes, nor should it mean that the law must reorder society.

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()

  • robertstacymccain

    It was never inevitable that we would arrive here. What has happened is that the people who should have called attention to this problem, and rallied opposition to it, were too busy with politics to pay attention to what was happening in the culture, especially in our colleges and universities. Furthermore, I would add, the political leadership of the Republican Party has been unwilling to recognize this problem, or perhaps afraid of being accused of “sexism” if they mentioned it.

  • Harry_Voyager

    “When come the revolution, we will all eat strawberries!”

    “But I don’t like strawberries.”

    “When come the revolution, you will like strawberries.”

  • Harry_Voyager

    How does the term justice even apply there? I mean, it could be applied to them trying to steal a view of the game, but that’s both captions.

  • rambler

    When comes the revolution, I’ll show them what they can do with their strawberries.