Hierarchical Equalism

Feminism rests on three basic assumptions.  For obvious reasons they express them simultaneously only when they think they can get away with it.

The first is that men and women are inherently equivalent.  Deep down, we’re all fundamentally the same, save the pernicious effects of patriarchal socialization.  The only reasons we don’t have as many female mechanical engineers as males is that women have been trained to either dislike engineering or have been taught to feel unworthy of even giving it a try.  The only reason there aren’t as many male daycare workers as females is that men have been trained to see “women’s work” as unmanly.  We can rectify such imbalances through society-wide re-socialization programs:  teach boys and girls to both play with trucks and dolls, have lots of kid movies with badass female protagonists (for both kids and adults), encourage young women to enter STEM fields while simultaneously training young men to get in touch with their soft side, etc.

The second is that women are uniquely superior to men.  Men have been responsible for the vast majority of economic oppression, wars, violence, and broken hearts since the beginning of time.  Despite having only one inherent advantage (physical strength, which they admit only grudgingly), the world over men have used their uniquely evil lust for power to oppress both women and each other.  Whereas women prefer sensitivity, community, cooperation, and egalitarianism, men prefer toughness, individuality, competition, and hierarchy.  To properly evolve we need to forsake the latter in favor of the former, to base promotion and hiring decisions on touchy-feely notions like “corporate culture” instead of masculine merit.  Men see only their own naked interest, but women instinctively understand what’s best for all of us.

The third is one they’ll never admit, but if we follow the Game principle of “watch what she does, not what she says”, we find that it’s also true that feminists believe that women are uniquely inferior to men.  Although women supposedly have the same basic emotional makeup as men, only women require trigger warnings to keep them on an even keel.  Although Ashton at the local Country Day school has far more opportunities to explore math and science as Billy Bob Jr. at the trailer park, only Ashton needs to have her hand held every step of the way on her way to becoming an engineer.  Without government programs encouraging women to make the right career choices, they’ll invariably choose something stupid like “housewife.”  Without government redistribution schemes, they’ll never survive the ramifications of their dumb mating choices.

Violent crime is horrific for all those who experience it, but only rape requires we re-program half our species to prevent it (when’s the last time you’ve heard a feminist fervently support any sort of “war on crime”?).  Women need extra support groups and “women in business” luncheons to have any hope of competing with the men.  Involuntarily celibate men are perfectly capable of just sucking it up, but involuntarily celibate women (usually obese) require infinite amounts of emotional support from everyone.

We often accuse the left (not only feminists) of equalism, the notion that underneath the surface we’re basically all the same.  Whether we’re speaking of race or sex, I disagree.  Indeed, the left often spouts an equalist rhetoric, there’s nothing about their underlying philosophy that supports the notion in the slightest that they actually believe in anything other than a strict system of hierarchy of value, rights, and responsibilities.

For example, take Retrenched’s description of modern entitlement:

The prevailing idea in the modern west is that women always have an absolute right to receive whatever it is they happen to want from men – sex, love, relationships, marriage, children, bullet shields etc. – but men must always earn whatever it is they want from women, whether it’s sex, love, marriage, or even the right to see their children post-divorce. Men’s worthiness must be continually proven, all the time, while women’s worthiness and perfection are just presumed by default, regardless of their character or behavior, and are never to be questioned under any circumstances.

This bias towards women’s inherent worthiness [compared to men’s relative worthlessness] is so pervasive that to even suggest that women must earn things like love and marriage the way that men must earn sex is considered vicious misogyny.

How can one reconcile such sentiments with anything even remotely resembling a view that we’re fundamentally the same?

You can’t, and I don’t think we should try.  Not unlike the postmodernists who preach that all cultures are equal only so that they can later sneak in their true belief that Western Civilization is uniquely evil, feminists promote equalism only in hopes of securing special rights and privileges for women and women alone.  To promote the idea that our enemy is leftist equalism is to posit that their rhetoric somehow matches their real beliefs.  It doesn’t.

Yet we also mistakenly assume that the sense of entitlement stems only from a belief in the superiority of whatever group they’re hoping to support.  In a sense it does, for they believe that women (or gays, blacks, etc.) deserve everybody else’s stuff.  It’s more important for Chrissy to get her pills with your money than it is for you to keep what you earned.

However, coupled with the belief that Chrissy is more worthy of your money than you are is the unexpressed assumption that without you, Chrissy can’t cut it.  White males sometimes go through financial hardship, too.  On one hand, they don’t give a damn (unless it looks they might be able to get him to vote Democrat), but on the other hand they just assume that the white guy will be fine if we don’t do a damn thing to help him.

In my taxonomy of leftists, I divided the left into three basic groups.  The Anointed believe that they’re fundamentally superior to the rest of us, sufficiently enlightened to know how the rest of us should run our lives, which of us need help and who should do the helping.  In unscientific formula, this is written as I>U (pronounced I am greater than you) or I=G (I am G-d).  The Benighted feel guilty, unworthy of their lives, they’re willing to give it all away.  They’re formula is I<U, or I=A (all I am is dust in the wind).

But the feminist Entitled are a mixture, worthy of the fruits of your labor, incapable of surviving without them (most male feminists are Benighted).  The Entitled believe both I>U and I<U, that they are both gods and victims.  They’re just like men but uniquely superior, just as capable of any man but forever in need of extra help.

They don’t believe in the equalism of rights (equality before the law), nor equalism of human worth (we’re equal in value before God), nor equalism of ability, nor biological equalism.  They believe women deserve and need special rights, women are uniquely gifted and morally superior, and women can’t make in on their own without men, even though they can.

Whether equalism is great, awful, or somewhere in between, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what feminists actually believe.

This entry was posted in Culture, Feminism, Politics, Race, Rhetoric. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Hierarchical Equalism

  1. Pingback: Hierarchical Equalism | Manosphere.com

  2. infowarrior1 says:

    “Whether equalism is great, awful, or somewhere in between, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what feminists actually believe”

    True. But a critique of it will surely defang their ability to assert their superiority by virtue of their “Egalitarianism.” It however is also useful to call out their non-adherence to equalism.

    What’s your solution to this dissonance between rhetoric and action on their part?

    • Martel says:

      I’ve found that if in response to their ostensibly egalitarian aims you respond by attacking egalitarianism, it merely gives them more wiggle room. I believe their notions of equalism are a straw-man shield of sorts, so no matter how well you tear it down, you still leave them untouched.

      A more efficient approach is to simply call out the contradictions, to call attention to the differences between what they say they believe and what they really believe/do. Anonymous Conservative’s either/or attack is quite useful here.

      I’ll go into more detail in a post soon.

      • Martel, you answer sounds like Alinsky in Rules for Radical. They are the establishment now. Alinsky said to take the establishment’s official moral code book and beat them over the head with it. If we enter a cycle of Alinsky activism that creates each successive version of the establishment, what does that future look like?

      • Martel says:

        @ Doug: The left is downright clueless regarding what policies actually work and the “right” is far more realistic.

        However, when it comes to getting and keeping power, the left is far more realistic and it’s the right that has its head in the clouds. Regarding power, the left is pure Red Pill. They understand how to manipulate the realities of human nature to serve their own lust for power.

        Therefore, we’ve got a lot to learn from them, but we’ve also got to be pretty careful. First, it’s difficult to balance studying how to get power with a desire to promote individual liberty. Second, the left has some advantages that we’ll never have ourselves in that their moral code is entirely subjective. For example, to the left, it’s legitimate to tell smaller lies to sell the Grand Truth (i.e. Michael Moore), but for us it’s not.

        Strong rhetorical and campaigning techniques are essential for turning this thing around, but they’re by no means sufficient. Somebody you persuade with rhetoric alone today can easily change their mind when they come across somebody else with strong rhetoric tomorrow.

        So we’ve got to use rhetoric as a stopgap (to neutralize theirs) and as a means to get people to listen long enough to be persuaded rationally.

        Simultaneously, we’ve got to start changing the culture, knocking down the leftist assumptions that even a lot of conservatives share. Rhetoric can help win elections, but it’s not that great at “changing hearts”. A healthy people is a bit harder to fool, but at present we’re profoundly unhealthy.

        And if hearts and minds aren’t changed, if every election cycle depends on who’s able to better manipulate the masses, we are indeed in trouble. We’ve got to do it, but if that’s all we’re able to do, we’re sunk.

      • @Martell: “We’ve got to do it, but if that’s all we’re able to do, we’re sunk.”

        That was the big, salient truth saved until the end. Are you sure that being ‘sunk’ is so terrible. In the words if Rahm Emanuel, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

        I think you are throwing away good money/effort/time after bad, not that I think rhetoric is never useful. It certainly is, on rare occassion, but what is the earthly value of to whom you are talking. Is it not the Christian thing to do to keep treasure in principles and not in the futility of temporal existence? Yes, you can turn your cheek seven times seventy times and be as patient as Job, but as far as doing it as a strategy to actually win your way and not for other reasons, one could argue it is not sound reason. I suppose you can value people as people but also appreciate the antithetical political value they are. Yeah, we don’t agree. lol I still notice the banner image. I think we oft don’t know what we can do until the circumstances arrive. Deep down, I think you agree with me, but you don’t wish to commit to such an ‘uncivilized’ position. Is it civilized to try and save the uncivilized? Rhetorical.

      • Martel says:

        @ Doug: “Are you sure that being ‘sunk’ is so terrible.”

        Pretty close to sure. A mini-crisis could conceivably wake us up, but a major one might cause some serious bloodletting. I think that even realists fail to understand how bad it can really get.

        “Is it not the Christian thing to do to keep treasure in principles and not in the futility of temporal existence?”

        It’s also Christian to “render unto Caesar what it Caesar’s”, and Caesar’s is the realm of the material world. The second desert temptation (Matthew order) also calls attention to the importance of acknowledging temporal reality. God may love you, but it’s not a good idea to jump off buildings or in any other way neglect harsh reality because of your faith.

        “Man does not live on bread ALONE”, but he still needs bread.

        “Is it civilized to try and save the uncivilized? Rhetorical.”

        I divide those who just don’t get it into three groups (one of the groups is a mixture of the two that are relevant for this point). Some just have to be defeated, straight up. Mock, marginalize, neutralize, disempower. They can’t be converted (save by virtual miracle), but we can keep them from doing too much harm.

        Others stupidly follow the first group, and these minds can be changed. A lot of people support liberal policies because they truly want to do the right thing, they’re just really bad at knowing what that is.

        In their defense, we’ve done an awful job at getting our points across (or often even heard), so if you want to do right by the poor, the cultural default tells you that you should be a lefty.

        Of course they should spend time investigating both sides, etc., but despire their laziness and/or stupidity, there’s some actual human decency there. When it’s called to their attention that their political views actually make things worse, they change their minds.

        So I reject the case for “let it burn then build it back up” on two counts. First, I think we’ve got more power to change things now than most of us think. Second, if we don’t change things, it’ll probably get far worse than most of us suspect.

        Some of the explanation for this is religious, but some of it’s not, described here:

        https://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/mission-for-the-manosphere/

  3. Once you understand that Feminism is really just the politicization of Envy, then the actions of the Feminist make sense. They are both superior and inferior depending on the situation and what the politics of envy calls for. If they are divorcing, they are victims and must demand recompense from their husbands, if they are the ones who committed adultery. If they are in the workforce, they are superior to men because they can do anything we can do better. If they are being a parent, they are better at it because they are nurturing. If they are caught beating their disabled war veteran husbands, then it isn’t their fault, it was PMS and their womanly ways.

    Envy is the primary vice of all women. Feminism merely made it a political cause and a virtue, rather than a vice.

    • Martel says:

      This applies to the entire left as well. Marx’s initial complaint against capitalism was that it increased absolute poverty. After it became apparent that free markets actually helped the poor, he switched focus.

      Even if the poor are better off in absolute terms, because the rich often get richer at a faster rate than the poor get richer, the poor are “relatively” worse off.

      In other words, if you’re now able to get a brand new Ford Fusion to replace your crappy Pinto, you’ve still got cause to complain if the other guy was able to get a Ferrari.

      It’s institutionalized envy, pure and simple.

  4. peregrinejohn says:

    This is something I’ve been struggling to elucidate for a long time, and especially to find a way to worm it into the more vulnerable members of the brainwashed. The description by Retrenched was so uncannily spot-on that I copied it out for future use when I saw it. Too purely and painfully truthful to use in evangelistic senses, but clear and concise enough for carrying in my head. I’ve nothing to add (as usual), except to note that this article gives me some strong levers with which to pry off bits of rhetorical armor.

    It still requires subtlety, of course. To begin to answer infowarrior’s question, an innocent-sounding bit of passive aggression is one handy way when actions are clearly divergent from equalism: “Huh. I thought [claimed belief here].” Being sure to know the likely responses (there will be 1 or 2 preprogrammed options for each) and not letting them get away with a floppy-minded dodge via logical fallacy is the only tricky thing at that point.

    • Martel says:

      One fun one is to call attention to their ostensible desire for independence with their dependence on everybody else giving them whatever they want, and I try to use the words in obvious juxtaposition. “It amazes me how many independent women depend on everybody else paying for their stuff.”

      But more detail later.

  5. Women are manipulators. Put them in their place, and their powers of manipulation are for constructive or “good” purposes. Reason is just a tool of instant gratification for the uncivilized. I don’t engage feminists in reason any more than I watch what the magician tells me to watch as my life if stolen from me. Women do follow logic, but not anything they profess except by convienient coincidence. Heck, how often to men deny what logic the immediately salient facts dictate by the laws of nature and nature’s God?

    I had a mini epiphany while skimming this post. Martel, with your rhetoric you explain to people how to feel about the facts you will present and then you present the facts. That is an expensive brand of stewardship that assumes the people who can’t handle their own emotions are deserving of political inclusion and a piece of the power pie. Funny how your icon is a hammer (designed for constructive purposes but a striking tool) and your blog banner depicts medieval weaponry in action. I don’t know what they symbolizes to you. Could it be you believe in a plan B? Could it be you intend to conquer by words alone?

    The feminist field of battle is a morass where the only consistent winner is wealthless feral order that creeps closer to full realization. As far as being a steward of wayward broads, the concept of rape fantasy is clear enough for those who would look. Women are unsatisfied and unimpressed by abstract hammers alone.

    I will conclude this comment by telling a modified joke. You guys have probably heard the original.

    Q: When does a woman make a manipulative argument?
    A: Who cares.

    • peregrinejohn says:

      People who can’t handle their own emotions, at least enough to think through the processes under long-term discussion here, generally don’t come here, and if they do, they quickly leave – which suggests that conquering by words alone might actually work. It is, after all, more or less how we got into this mire.

      But no. To continue your analogy, there are battlements and walls, and the absurdity of beginning with direct assault has been made pretty clear. Sappers do not win without the invasion of the walls that follows their work; but so long as the walls are undamaged, no one can get past them. Which is why they were built, after all. Therefore, we learn to deprive the walls of their foundations of falsehood.

      • Martel says:

        “People who can’t handle their own emotions, at least enough to think through the processes under long-term discussion here, generally don’t come here, and if they do, they quickly leave –…”

        I think the lefty hesitancy to participate here indicates two things. First, I’m good and they can tell that. If they saw an easy opening they’d take it, but they don’t so they don’t. Attack dogs know they’ll get bit back, the more reasonable probably fear deep down that I might actually change their minds.

        Second, at this juncture ignoring me is probably the best option. Too much criticism might call attention to me, and if I’m too well-known I might do more damage. Notice how rarely lefties rip into Thomas Sowell–far better to act as though he doesn’t exist.

        “which suggests that conquering by words alone might actually work. It is, after all, more or less how we got into this mire.”

        This part I’m not as sure of. I’ve got a cult following, but my ideas aren’t exactly being broadcast on Fox News yet.

        Words CAN change minds, which is why they place such a premium on shutting people up, calling them names to scare them into shutting up, portraying their opponents as so downright evil that nobody should even pause to listen to anything they might have to say, etc.

        So ultimately, whether or not words can work will depend on how well we subvert these techniques.

        “To continue your analogy, there are battlements and walls, and the absurdity of beginning with direct assault has been made pretty clear. Sappers do not win without the invasion of the walls that follows their work; but so long as the walls are undamaged, no one can get past them. Which is why they were built, after all. Therefore, we learn to deprive the walls of their foundations of falsehood.”

        Yup. Guerilla techniques, effective, strategic, counter-measures. Ensure that they’re as afraid of what we can do to them (rhetorically, of course) as we are of them. Recognize that it’s going to be a hard, long, fight, and ENJOY that.

    • Martel says:

      “I don’t engage feminists in reason any more than I watch what the magician tells me to watch as my life if stolen from me.”

      I don’t either, AT FIRST (I’m talking about in person here, not necessarily blog posts). I demonstrate rhetorical dominance, cajole, sympathize, humiliate, or whatever else to lay the framework for my reasoned argument. I make it clear that BS won’t work and won’t be tolerated, and then I make my actual point.

      “That is an expensive brand of stewardship that assumes the people who can’t handle their own emotions are deserving of political inclusion and a piece of the power pie.”

      To quote Clint Eastwood in one of my favorite movies, “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.” Whether or not they deserve to have any say over how we’re governed, they do. And even if they’re somehow “disenfranchised” either because we completely change our form of government or just change suffrage laws, they’re opinions might not matter as much, but they’ll still matter.

      “Funny how your icon is a hammer (designed for constructive purposes but a striking tool) and your blog banner depicts medieval weaponry in action. I don’t know what they symbolizes to you.”

      All that and more. Charles, construction, destruction, sexuality, Pink Floyd, and a few other things I’m not naming intentionally.

      “Could it be you believe in a plan B? Could it be you intend to conquer by words alone?”

      I believe in doing whatever it takes. At present, words still seem like the best option. Yet I readily concede that “seem like” is subjective.

      As to other options, as I like to say, “I’ll jump off that bridge when I come to it.”

    • Martel says:

      I’m in partial agreement with this, partial disagreement. Nevertheless, it merits a thoughtful reply and most likely merits its own post.

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