Egalitarianism Debunked

No, I’m not an egalitarian. (I’m somewhere between an old-fashion feminist and a traditionalist – I have no label.) Why? Egalitarianism, a favorite of 20th century communists, makes everyone equally worthless.* Have a knowledge of the etymology and semantics of words before you start crapping them out of your months, my impressionable friends. When you say you’re an “egalitarian” you’d better be ready to unpack that word.

The social, political, and economic equality of all humans? Yes! Of course! That’s great, isn’t it? But is this what the label really means? What’s been put upon “egalitarian”? Unlike feminism, there are no waves and definitive history you can point to and give an example. Egalitarian is still fuzzy and broad. It’s both politically correct for the SJW progressive, and an appeasement to the sausage fest of dudebros. Egalitarianism is an apology for feminism.* And this is why extremes like it. It’s vague, and they can play semantics with vagueness.

I am not an egalitarian because the term is easily misconstrued to mean the sexes are quite literally physically equal, which is a fallacious and scientifically incorrect claim. Equal implies we are all physically the same, and we’re not. Females and males are not physically equal; we are built to do different things. We can be equal in our differences – we may be socially and legally equal. But women and men are not physically equal. From our chromosomes to endocrinology, we are not physically the same. Using the term “equal” to claim women and men are physically the same, is a dishonest game of semantics and science denial. Anyone who wants to debate the physical equality of men and women, please enroll in a human anatomy/biology course. After studying science, if you cannot grasp biological differences, then welcome to willful ignorance.

The terms equality and egalitarian are often misused and purposefully misrepresented to present that tiresome false dichotomy, either/or fallacy:   Women must either accept a submissive role as second class citizen and/or incubator, or behave and be treated as though we’re physically equal to men. I’ve seen arguments ad nauseam pro domestic violence, claiming that equality okays hitting women. The NTS fallacy is pimped out by the military industrial complex’s henchmen with the jargon of “true equality.” Why? They’d love to draft girls, women, even nursing mothers. Remember, the military is a business – it is a 600 billion dollar industry that feeds on warm bodies. They could care less whether those warm bodies are willing and physically designed for their agenda.

Men are men. Whether you like it or not, this is a patriarchal planet, and these are wars started by men. When are men going to start having periods and birthing babies? This brand of sissy “equality” warps progress to make women legal punching bags in the home and military. It is a fallacy and perversion of equality. It’s the scapegoating of women’s rights.

Dudebros, misogynists, and radicals of all fringes use the false dilemma of either rights make you a man, or you don’t get any rights at all. Rights are inherent; you don’t get to vote rights into existence. And it’s not an either/or problem:  either women regulated to second class citizens at best, or granted full rights and told to act like a man. That’s ridiculous and irrational. Women are human beings in our own right. Women are not men lacking a penis, even though the intersectionalist feminists would like this to be reality, it is not.

The reality of egalitarianism is that it makes everybody as equally worthless. Egalitarianism is not about making women equal in a social, economic, and legal stance; it’s about making girls and women available for abuse. Instead of applying equality to all intangible human rights, egalitarians have a very literal, base interpretation and dehumanizing brand of equality.


*Obviously, I’m not fond of communism. I’m loosely a democratic socialist. Most Americans have a really difficult time grasping that communism and socialism are not the same thing. As a lady who likes balance, I don’t subscribe to political extremes, such as communism and laissez faire capitalism.

*American women have barely had the right to vote for a mere century, yet we have a rejection of feminism because certain cretins feel threatened by a movement that’s been maligned from both inside and out. Education would solve any misconceptions and different waves of feminism. But, alas, in the day of Google folks are too lazy to dance their fingers across a keyboard. They’d just as well wait for someone to feed them a soundbite.