There is no equality

(h/t Hipster Racist)

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.“*

Aristotle

Simply put there is no such thing as equality. The worst tragedies of our age stem from the insidious notion that all people are equal. We can be equal before the law but not anything more. One particularly damaging result of this idea is that men and women must be equal. Feminism is supposedly (although I certainly do not believe it) about achieving equality between the sexes. Such a goal is untenable because to make such an attempt is the equivalent of trying to make apples equal to oranges. How can it be done? The answer is basically: it cannot.

Men and women have complementary natures and, thus, different roles to play. This is not about oppression; it is about acknowledging the laws of nature. Consider the story of Adam and Eve. God first made Adam (man). But God saw that Adam needed a partner, he was not fulfilled by his lonesome. Therefore God created Eve (woman) from the body of Adam. Woman was created from man, for man. Her body was created to receive his. Eve was the comforter of Adam, in body and soul. In her Adam finally found wholeness, and in making him whole Eve was fulfilled.

This is not about whether Adam was equal to Eve. It was about completion of the human person which could only be found in the unity of the sexes. Homosexuality is wrong and polygamy is wrong because they both reject this union. Man cannot be whole with another man and he cannot be whole with more than one woman. Those in rebellion against this eternal truth are denying the complementary natures of the sexes. One must believe that sex is interchangeable, that we are all essentially the same. But it is not true; common sense should dismiss that as lunacy.

A common mischaracterization of scripture would have us believe that men and women, in marriage, are called to “mutual submission”. This is simply not true. Only one person can be the leader in a marriage just as only one can be the captain of a ship. A woman is called to submit to her husband and a husband is to love and give himself up for his wife. This is not something radical, it is fairly simple. It amounts to deference of leadership and most decision making to the husband where he makes choices while honestly considering his wife’s interests.

The idea that men are to submit to their wives was created so as to prevent the Bible from appearing sexist. To require only women submit is to reject equality. However, this overlooks the fact that a man is then tasked with the difficulty of decision making and self-sacrifice for his wife. All feminism has done in terms of liberating women is removing them from submission to their husbands and instead making them submit to indifferent bosses/employers. Add to that the burden of difficult decision making which had once been removed from their shoulders has now been placed back on.

In the end, men want a refuge from the harshness of this world and women want to be that refuge. Why deny what we really want? The feminine is attracted to, and attracts, the masculine because the one wants what it does not have. This is how life works, how humans are made. Our physical bodies are even demonstrative of this complementary nature, of who is to give and who is to receive, who is to submit and who is to dominate. I have to wonder how this is not obvious.

*This first appears in 1974 in an explanation of Aristotle’s politics in Time magazine, before being condensed to an epigram as “Aristotle’s Axiom” in Peter’s People (1979) by Laurence J. Peter

Obsequium est non infirmitate

One modern notion I have found quite perplexing is that a woman submitting to a man is a sign of weakness. How is a woman fulfilling the feminine role weak? I suppose it would appear that way to those people whom believe the only strength is masculine strength and that we are to judge both men and women by one standard. What applies to men does not always apply to women. In fact, that which is considered a negative in men can often be considered a positive in women. Submission is one such example.

If a man placed himself in the submissive role it would be a demonstration of weakness of the masculine character. However, if he places himself in the leadership role it would be a demonstration of strength of the masculine character. Most moderns have unfortunately assumed this to apply universally and so if a woman wants to be a leader that makes her strong, hence the cheering on of the “strong, independent woman”. But is there really strength in defying one’s nature? No. Did Eve eating the apple after clearly being commanded not to make her a strong woman? No, it made her a weak, stupid woman.

Rebellion against nature is always weakness, regardless of how one tries to spin it. Feminists have done nothing for women except make them into poor examples of men. Most women today remind me of when boys are in their early teens and start cursing a lot thinking it makes them men. It does not; it makes them fools. The other night I was witness to women in their early 20s saying things, which they thought were funny, that I have not even heard men say. Vulgar, obscene, and disgusting are the words that come to mind when recalling those “ladies”.

Modern society is in large part a creation of feminism which must have been a movement led by women with mental disorders. I recall a quote by the Sage of Baltimore, H. L. Mencken, who said, “Misogynist — A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.” In most cases, men do not hate women. It is actually women who hold a far greater resentment towards one another than most “evil men” ever could.  For whatever reason, this translated into women deeming femininity to be some sort of enslavement and weakness. Feminism could best be described as contempt of femininity.

The solution to liberation from this feminine enslavement was obviously to ape men. But women cannot be men no matter how hard they try. There is a reason real femininity is so desirable to men and that even the Liberal men have begun to say they want “good girls”. The masculine is attracted to the feminine just as the feminine is attracted to the masculine. A man is as much put off by a woman acting like a man as a woman is put off by a man acting like a woman.

How can you keep a woman feminine? The answer is by keeping her in a position which allows for femininity to exist. That is done by a woman remaining under the leadership of a respected man which would first be her father then her husband. Of course to modern ears that is akin to slavery and treating her like she is property, which could not be further from the truth. You do not make a man by keeping him sheltered and always obedient to someone else’s commands, so how do you expect to make a woman by having her compete in a world which requires masculine traits for success?

Throw a woman to the wolves and she will turn cold. Have her make all the decisions in her life with no male direction and she will begin to lose her feminine essence. Let a woman sleep around and she will become jaded. All of that tears down the feminine, which is supposed to be the refuge of men from the coldness of life. Is it any wonder almost everyone today is so darn unhappy? Women have become cold as men and men have no fire by which to warm themselves.

For women, submission is feminine strength because it is part of the feminine ideal. The feminine ideal is always complementary with the masculine ideal, which is leadership. Men are protectors and women the protected. Men are to be respected and women are to be loved. One acts (men) and the other is acted upon (women). This is even symbolically expressed in the physical bodies of men and women. Women receive the man; the man does not receive the woman. She is penetrated, he is the penetrator. Even with nature breathing down our necks, moderns still refuse to accept anything short of “gender as a social construct”.

During the times of the Roman Republic, Cato the Elder said, regarding the breakdown of sex relations,

“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters .”

Nevertheless, I am optimistic that there are many men and women who are coming to this realization. What we have been told all our lives does not always stick. As previously mentioned, even Liberal men are beginning to desire the feminine girls. Feminists have gone too far by making men more like women and women more like men. There is a reaction building, perhaps slowly for now, of men and women trying to return to what their ancestors had. Hopefully it is but a matter of time before the feminists are seen by society at-large as crazy and destructive.

Previous Post: De puellis intactis et matrimonio

Next Post: Lectiones bonae pro diebus pluviius