Equality: A Man’s Claim
Covers the Equality Issue from the Male’s Perspective and an Ethical Society’s Viewpoint
Land, People, Politics, and Ignorance
Describes how the government and big business is exploiting the land and the people and taking our rights in the process.
If something changes in the realm of our societal existence, there is always a trade-off in the balance of the whole. For example, if women get the same pay as men and as many jobs as men, the role men traditionally held, and ironically are still expected uphold by many women, can no longer exist, nor can the traditional role provided by women continue to coexist. The same expectations of the past are still placed on men to enact their part without the resources available to do it (back it up), taken by women. And this is in addition to the void also caused by women no longer fulfilling their traditional role later as housewives and mothers.
In other words, the resources attached to the male’s social position of initiator and provider have been taken away by women, yet the burden of providing financial resources and initiating relationships in the social scene has not been acquired (reciprocated) by women to compensate at the sociological level. And this tradeoff concept still doesn’t take into account sex differences and personal self-worth (socio-biological aspects) associated within the traditional roles that previously existed, nor does it account for the best/traditional arrangement for the family and raising children. Ironically, the new so-called “equal” result fails to provide any gain, but instead results in a two workers-for-the price-of-one deal for employers, big business, and the government wherein two people are now working for the equivalent income only one person needed to support a family in the past. Contrary to the traditional arrangement that supported a family, the situation now requires twice the amount of time (two people, both the man and woman) at work with twice the time taken away from one’s life and properly raising children, thus sacrificing the very reason for working. Go figure.
We as a society have been duped—manipulated and convinced of a totally foreign concept that has taken part in destroying us. We as a people have lost, not gained anything. However, there must be some point to this forced restructuring. Has this served as an effective means to convert our society to Communism? Are having both men and women working and at lower equivalent wages compared to the past perhaps a way to make us “equal” to third world countries and a way to exploit us in the same way other third world countries have been exploited? Due to selfish greed, we as a country and society have been sold a false bill of goods.
Doctoral student and book author, Alan Millard
Believing that having women in combat will be emotionally hard on the men due to them wanting to protect women from harm’s way reveals that these type of men are not emotionally prepared for the job and therefore should be removed from combat positions. These types of men are why we have “chivalrous” discriminatory laws as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and mothers granted child custody over fathers. Real adult men would feel an equal desire to defend other men as much as women. The best way to determine who is to be in combat is to continue to have established standards that determine if one qualifies for fighting in combat. If this ends up being men, so be it. The qualification standards are what matter and should be used to make that determination.