I am continually perplexed by the almost pathological inability of anti-feminists and “Men’s Rights Activists” to grok some of the simplest concepts known to humanity. Here’s one of the most common anti-egalitarian fallacies out there, as reiterated by W.F. Price at The Spearhead in a tedious post about the supposed incompatibility between (his caricature of) feminism with (his blinkered brand of) atheism:
However, there’s another issue here that is being ignored. Atheism is the rejection of religious fictions, but the entire premise of feminism is based on a religious fiction: equality.
Try asking someone to defend equality in rational terms, and watch them stump themselves. There is simply nothing about the idea that makes sense from a rational perspective. In fact, equal only makes sense in math, because no two things are truly the same. Although both are athletes, is a baseball player equal to a football player? Is a german shepherd equal to a poodle? These questions don’t really make any sense, because the idea of equality is a human creation to describe some quality that can’t actually be defined.
I know I’ve repeatedly asked this, but what is it with these people and all their ridiculous strawmen? Do they subconsciously recognize their dearth of any credible arguments and resort to ridiculous depictions of their opponents in a desperate attempt to make them look stupid? Or are they just pure-bred liars through and through? It’s honestly difficult to tell, though I’m not sure the difference really matters; either way, they’re still blithering idiots who can’t recognize reality when it smacks them on the nose.
I mean, really. ‘Equality’ is not the same as ‘identicality’. I don’t even know how many times I’ve said this, now. It’s in the dictionary and everything. Wanting for men and women to be treated equally doesn’t mean expecting society to pretend that both genders are physically and psychologically indistinguishable. Contra the risible delusions of anti-feminists, egalitarians know that men and women are different. The point is that we also know that this doesn’t constitute any good reason for treating one gender any better or worse under the law than the other. I’ve still yet to receive a halfway decent explanation for why women’s physiological or behavioral makeup somehow excuses the professional, economic, legal and societal disadvantages that hundreds of millions of them continue to face around the world.
The day that an MRA comes up with an argument for why men and women shouldn’t receive equal treatment in the eyes of the law and society that isn’t completely ridiculous to anyone with a rational mind is the day there will no longer be a “Men’s Rights” movement, at least not as the thinly veiled refuge of misogynist creeps that it is today.