This question (Do men have it easier than women?) forms a small part of one of the biggest circular arguments dominating the public rhetoric in recent times.
This is how the circle of confusion begins and then propagates itself into a state of self-propulsion, confusion and political power making:
- Women are equal to men and capable of doing everything and man can do (and more).
- Men have dominated women forever and women have been victimised therefore cannot achieve their full potential. Women need to be helped out of their victimhood by men.
- Women need to be sexually liberated, be free to sleep with as many people as they want to, never be held responsible for their actions and have sole control of all interactions that may lead to reproduction (and also the financial, social and material resources associated with the chose man).
- Entry standards into workplaces need to be lowered so that women can enter into their selected male dominated workplaces.
- Lastly: Governments need to step in and legislate protective measures and mechanisms to transfer wealth and resources from men (who don’t want to conform) to women. All matters in life need to be legislated and governments need more power to protect women!
And someone introducing all of these contradictions is going to make something easier for someone!
Are you starting to see how this well-orchestrated series of social constructs runs around in circles and just leads to oblivion? I really don’t if there is a purpose to it all or if it is just a series of stupid mistakes that create mass confusion.
Are there differences between men and women?
The first inconsistency we get to is how can men have it easier if the two genders are so equal?
On the right hand you have this notion that there is no differences between men and women (aka women can do anything that a man can do) but on the other hand we have this constant argument about victimhood and patriarchy keeping women from achieving equality. Surely if they are so equal women would be just as capable of overcoming the elitists just as well as the commoner men can.
The conversation is completely without substance, even a young child can tell list out a whole bunch of differences between boys and girls. What is really going on is a socialist political movement using feminism as a vehicle to propagate critical theory and mass confusion. What purpose would be possibly serve? Stay with me to the end and all will be revealed.
Men need to be less (controlling towards women not men) and more (giving towards women but not men) with a long list of contradicting caveats
I have paraphrased point number 2 above but I think this explanation gets to the centre of the conversation more directly. Women have undoubtedly been given a stronger political and social voice today than they had 100 years ago. Yes, it was given to them, they did not take it on their own accord.
This vocal feminist socio-political agenda aims to do nothing more than divide and conquer (basic political and military reasoning that even a high school student could see a mile away). All the pomposity about men need to do this or do that serves only to confuse the enemy, segregate the troops and render them weak, isolated and without leadership ready to be conquered.
Women use the ultimate weapon to blindside their men, sex. It is the ultimate use of male nature turned on itself. There is good historical reason why male troops or spiritual healers were forced to abstain from women.
Governments & Elitists step in to hand the women their weaponry
It is well known that some parts of the American government in conjunction with elite and wealthy families identified the need for and then funded a feminist/socialist political program for the best part of the last 100 years.
The argument made at the time was that war was that something needed to be done to bolster capitalism, without military war progress was in stagnation. A social war was the next best thing to progress the GDP and get capitalism back into full swing again.
First wave feminism handed women their right to vote and property rights.
Second wave handed women all the reproductive rights/sexual liberation and also no fault divorces along with all the associated mechanisms for wealth transfer.
Yes it was a lot more complex but I have made my point, if you already know more you don’t need me to explain it to you.
Third and fourth waves of feminism in the west have traded (with those women who want to fight) political power for all the legislation they need to dominate the gender war. The sad truth is that only a small proportion of women chose to fight and the rest chose to follow or do nothing.
Whilst I still don’t think that women themselves are in positions to dominate the key parts of western society yet, feminist men definitely are and women stand behind the scene pulling their strings. Perhaps they will be one day, heaven us those of us who chose not to conform.
Does there have to be a winner? Why?
If you have asked the question I assume it is because you want there to be one winner and one loser. You may even have a pre-determined notion of who you want it to be. I challenge you to think about who put those thoughts into your brain and just how productive they are?
Whether it fits your political leanings or not the inescapable truth is that nature makes it mandatory for the two genders to get along so that the species can continue. If men and women choose to continue widening the gap then the species will be in jeopardy. Surprisingly this is not a new problem. Long lost civilisations from thousands of years ago have walked before us and faced the same issues, they failed.
If there is one winner from the war of the genders it is the governments and elitist groups who have orchestrated it for their own purpose. Power and money.