Strategic Absolute Equality

By Bryan Scandrett: Absolute equality for women as a strategic policy and the death of chivalry.
Mark Dent recently presented an excellent article on the myth that feminism means equality for women. 
This article is one of the most important I have read in it’s relevance to the sameness/differences gender debate that rages on. It is hugely important as Mark lists a range of ways where feminism isn’t interested in equality but rather clear advantage over men. For the aware strategist this fixes a spotlight on the unstated but central relevant strategic point of the gender war.
How does feminism command so much institutional power, globally, and men so little, all while we are passed off as the omnipotent patriarchy, for an extraordinary amount of time? Yet we lack the power bring an end to the barbarity of slicing bits off male penises at birth, at whim — an achievement that feminism accomplished for girls pretty much the same afternoon they found out that female circumcision was a thing. They even managed to obliterate the notion of a ritual pin prick before the ink could dry. Religious and cultural freedoms be damned!
Worst patriarchy ever!
In explaining this hocus pocus, I will make the case that only a third answer is relevant to the question of are men and women different or the same? Not only is there a third answer but a second, far more important question, if one is to make any claim to logical, strategic rationality.
The first answer to the question is that some people, usually feminists, claim there is no difference between the genders, there is no difference between men and women and both must be treated the same. The idea that we are both human and hence the both exactly same, a couple of body parts excepted. This is where the social experimenters are intellectually stuck, ethics be damned. They mean to run their absurd social experiment like a train over us all by any means necessary.
And to extend the ambiguity, they have invented so many more genders, it’s pointless trying to count them. All this is based on an ideology of equality for women. A complete logical fraud as Mark so clearly points out. Definitely a fluid gender fraud as what is said one minute can and will change the next.
Answer two is the counter argument, usually made by MRA’s, MGTOW’s, general manospherians, as well as traditionalists, who flatly state the differences are multitude and obvious.
One births children and the other does not.
Men and women can never be the same and different treatment is rational.
Feminism is wrong and must be gotten rid of.
That is a dangerous strategic move in my view, regardless of it’s accuracy or otherwise, for a number of reasons, as it opens the gates wide for feminists to use chivalry, as they have always done, to demand and receive the very advantages over men that Mark lists so clearly in his last article, linked above.
And yet the difference crowd wallow in the surety of their righteousness, hurling genuine rage and ridicule at anyone who would disagree with their position. As Paul Elam describes it, the circular firing squad. It is both a tactical and strategic mistake to debate a moot point. Tap dancing in a minefield to prove a minefield exists is not a game you can win.
There is only one factually, strategically and tactically correct answer to the question, are men and women the same or different?
YES.
Answer three is the effective combative and strategically correct position

Bottom line: Feminists exploit difference to garner chivalry. Without chivalry no one would ever have heard of feminism. Period.

There are many differences and there are a lot of similarities.
But a moments reflection of the laser accuracy of Mark’s piece will illuminate the key, relevant strategic point, staring us all in the face, that so many are blithely missing in a desperate pursuit to be right.

It is in the differences that the gynocentrists use to garner speshul snowflake treatment while the bodies of men begin to mount.
This is why gynocentrism is so hard to defeat. Women are just more valued than men and have always been. Men are disposable and women aren’t. This is the core central reality of the red pill itself.
Read that again, and stop helping gynocentrists to use men as service animals.
MRA’s, anti-feminists and anti-gynocentrists need to exploit ABSOLUTE EQUALITY to drive feminism into extinction and force morality onto gynocentrism.
The narrative about gender value has to change or men lose out forever against irrational emotion about the value of your Mummy, wife, daughters and granddaughters.
“Women are not more important than men.” — If that statement bothers you, think equality. That’s far more important than figuring out the exact mix of differences and similarities. In terms of value, not to mention in a wide variety of psychometrically measured traits, the entire manosphere needs to be screaming that men and women are EXACTLY the same, with a unified voice.
The informed combatant argues for the total and absolute EQUALITY of VALUE between men and women, with no exceptions. Shared humanity in place of the totalizing, ever-expanding privileges won by feminism’s grandstanding of women’s “vulnerabilities” — their smaller size, wombs, breasts, lactation or menstruation.
When the Titanic is going down, the best question to ask is a second question.
Is chivalry dead?
HELL, YES!
Equality, remember?
Call for equality and put ‘Parents and their children’ into the life rafts first. Then consign a number of women to their icy graves. Equal to men.
Afterwards, erect a monument to the bravery and sacrifice of the lost souls and give a bronze medallion for their descendants to keep in the drawer with the rest of the bric-a-brac.

• In every conversation about legal reform, demand equal sentencing for women.
• 50/50 child custody.
• Demand jail time for judges who discriminate in favour of women.
• When a child is to be circumcised, demand his sisters receive the exact same.
• Or else he receive the exact same protection as his sister.
• Demand not only conscription for women but a #1 crewcut for all women in the military and they take their turn at assaulting machine gun nests, and point duty.

We could wipe out feminism in an afternoon with just a mandatory haircut if you think about it.
When ever you are opposed in your demand for absolute equality, ask questions: why are women more valuable than men? What exactly makes a modern woman less disposable than a man apart from female cowardice and male protectionism? Apart from the shackling of identity as a “real man” in service to women? Apart from the desire for approval from women? Why do you hate strong women? Why are you against equality? Where have you been living for the last 60 years of fish, bicycles and strong, independent women who don’t need no man?
Give no quarter.
Those who only argue the obvious differences between the TWO genders (factually accurate as it is) do themselves, and men in general, a dire disservice.
You are handing a pussy pass to chivalry.
To the power base of feminism.
The reason Mark Dent’s list exists.
It is just rationally, tactically and strategically stupid to try fighting gynocentrism with “Men and women are different!” as a single position, whether it’s true or not.
There is a group of idiots within our own ranks who blather about any approach that uses feminism against itself as ‘being just like feminists.’ These armchair activists are as dumb as a box of rocks. Few things I dislike more than a strategically ignorant purist, shaming men to police the combat.
Using feminism’s own specious logic on itself, to her detriment is exactly what we must be doing.
It is only in full and absolute equality of value, responsibility and accountability for women, that we will find any regulation to female entitlement.
That moderator simply isn’t there in the differences side of the debate.
That is the open gate to chivalry, unbridled female entitlement and male disposability, without bounds.

Source