The Political Problem of Pornography

[ShieldWife]

What's wrong with egalitarianism?

This wasn’t asked of me, but I felt like answering anyway even though I have been at odds with TNoL at times.

Egalitarianism is wrong because people are not equal. In fact, the very notion that people are equal is incoherent and nonsensical. Despite this, equality is taken as an article of faith by so many people in the modern world.

Not only is human equality nonsensical, but the ideas it breeds are inherently destructive and divisive. If everyone is equal then why does that guy over there have more stuff than me? If all people are equal then why does one group have more success than some other group? It must be some kind of active maliciousness, exploitation, or discrimination that causes such inequality among fundamentally equal people - which must be corrected through force.

People are different and should be treated differently, not the same.

 

[Scottty]

What's wrong with egalitarianism?

It leads too easily to a lowest-common-denominator mindset. If everyone is supposed to be equal, then what do you do about the fact that in real life, some people work harder, or are more intelligent, or more creative, or more empathetic, and so on?

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

It leads too easily to a lowest-common-denominator mindset. If everyone is supposed to be equal, then what do you do about the fact that in real life, some people work harder, or are more intelligent, or more creative, or more empathetic, and so on?

True, though, that forgets that there are multiple forms of egalitarianism. And that the kind traditionally espoused by learned men, has been treating like as like, and treating people equally in so far as the equal. Further, one need look no further than the abuses of the so called "better people" to see why the opposite is so much worse.

Anyways, I am rather...disappointed by the absurd arguments that both sides are bringing up, since you actually all have been doing decently over all.

 

[Captain X]

True, though, that forgets that there are multiple forms of egalitarianism. And that the kind traditionally espoused by learned men, has been treating like as like, and treating people equally in so far as the equal. Further, one need look no further than the abuses of the so called "better people" to see why the opposite is so much worse.

Anyways, I am rather...disappointed by the absurd arguments that both sides are bringing up, since you actually all have been doing decently over all.

This is exactly why I'm sitting here with a WTF look on my face at some of the people here, especially a few I thought had more sense. The left is already attacking egalitarianism as supposedly being something created by MRAs, and now the right is, too? Dafaq?

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

This is exactly why I'm sitting here with a WTF look on my face at some of the people here, especially a few I thought had more sense. The left is already attacking egalitarianism as supposedly being something created by MRAs, and now the right is, too? Dafaq?

I am sure that he was referring to the debased form of egalitarianism, since that is what many people think of it as today. And I agree, it is a problem, what was once an important value is rotting from within and is being eaten from both sides. And I imagine, you'd understand why I am somewhat on both sides of this porn issue, both make good points. My belief is that this should be left purely to the social sphere and not to government intervention. It can be decided by society in general...or when society has reached a better state of mind...

 

[Scottty]

This is exactly why I'm sitting here with a WTF look on my face at some of the people here, especially a few I thought had more sense. The left is already attacking egalitarianism as supposedly being something created by MRAs, and now the right is, too? Dafaq?

They are not attacking the same form of it.
The Left is happy to demand equality when it means themselves getting more than they already have. But the moment it would mean giving up some of what they have, for the benefit of others, then equality is denounced as something bad.

 

[Captain X]

The left does not want "equality" and any of those who claim that are just lying because they think they're actually fooling people. Many of them have had what equality actually means explained to them, which is why they've switched to attacking equality while emphasizing what they call equity. The soft way of them trying to explain this viewpoint takes the form of a drawing depicting three people of different heights standing along a fence trying to watch a game, where they illustrate "equality" as all three of them standing on boxes of the same size which allows only one of them to see over the fence, and "equity" as the three of them standing on differing numbers of boxes so that all of them can see over the fence. Basically an "equality of outcome" argument.

 

[The Name of Love]

To clarify on my views of egalitarianism, my view is pretty much what @ShieldWife has stated. With regards with the kind of egalitarianism porn promotes, this was the link (from the first page, no less).

The egalitarian views I attack as "destructive" are "egalitarian attitudes towards women," otherwise known as gender egalitarianism. This elaborated in studies like this one, which states:

Pornography users held more egalitarian attitudes—toward women in positions of power, toward women working outside the home, and toward abortion—than nonusers of pornography. Further, pornography users and pornography nonusers did not differ significantly in their attitudes toward the traditional family and in their self-identification as feminist. The results of this study suggest that pornography use may not be associated with gender nonegalitarian attitudes in a manner that is consistent with radical feminist theory.

This, in combination with the other studies I linked demonstrating that pornography is responsible for causing people to lose their religious beliefs, the E. Michael Jones theory of "sexual liberation as political control" (that is, porn use makes one more docile), and the traditional link by non-egalitarian thinkers like Plato between egalitarian politics and animal passions seems to suggest that the positive correlation between porn use and gender egalitarianism is causal in nature. If you hold a traditional, gender complementarian position like myself or @Captain-General, you should oppose pornography use.

Traditional gender complementarianism holds that women and men have differing physical and psychological characteristics that make them better suited for certain tasks. Those with this view hold that the push for women to enter traditionally male-dominated fields in modern times is, on the whole, destructive because it leads them to neglect their traditional roles as guardians of the hearth. If nobody is raising the kids, who is? I should also refer you to the copious evidence showing that women out-earning men leads to a decline in marriage rates. This makes a certain amount of sense: traditionally, marriage was a sort of division of labor, where the woman (who had less economic opportunities) would concentrate her efforts on what she could do at home while men concentrated their efforts on what they could do outside of the home. What's the point of marriage if you out-earn any potential suitor? And the push for more women in STEM fields and other male-dominated fields is also well-known to any critic of modern feminism.

I hope I've made my point clear enough.

 

[ShieldWife]

I would agree that gender egalitarianism has been particularly destructive in that it’s broken down gender roles and done damage to the family. Ideally men should be the bread winners with women bearing and raising children, with men as leaders of society and women subservient to more dominant men.

 

[The Name of Love]

I would agree that gender egalitarianism has been particularly destructive in that it’s broken down gender roles and done damage to the family. Ideally men should be the bread winners with women bearing and raising children, with men as leaders of society and women subservient to more dominant men.

Well, yes, that’d be traditional patriarchy. And traditional matriarchy (as @Captain-General describes it) would say the same thing, but would add that men should be submissive to women because the woman’s place (the home) is superior to men’s place (public service and bread-winning).

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Well, yes, that’d be traditional patriarchy. And traditional matriarchy (as @Captain-General describes it) would say the same thing, but would add that men should be submissive to women because the woman’s place (the home) is superior to men’s place (public service and bread-winning).

So I take it you don't 100% agree with that, but consider each position to be equally important, but fundamentally different?

 

[ShieldWife]

Well, yes, that’d be traditional patriarchy. And traditional matriarchy (as @Captain-General describes it) would say the same thing, but would add that men should be submissive to women because the woman’s place (the home) is superior to men’s place (public service and bread-winning).

Well, we agree that the workplace is where men should be and the home where women should be. I can’t emphasize strongly enough that people who undervalue the important of the home are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Women abdicating their roles as mothers, homemakers, caretakers, and teachers of children is likely one of the things at the heart of the rot in modern Western society. Doing these things are likely more important than the jobs that most men do, aside from the fact that men’s jobs make a woman’s job possible.

Though as women are in charge of the home and children, which carries incredible unofficial power, men must have the official power to balance this. Not only in societal roles but as master over their wives, which both men and women want deep down.

Also, as we have larger societies, such as nations rather than tribes, women become less suited for leadership.

 

[ShieldWife]

So I take it you don't 100% agree with that, but consider each position to be equally important, but fundamentally different?

That is what I believe. Men and women are both extremely important to maintaining society, neither can be said to be more important than the other because they (and their respective complementary roles) are both necessary.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

That is what I believe. Men and women are both extremely important to maintaining society, neither can be said to be more important than the other because they (and their respective complementary roles) are both necessary.

I would agree, though I am also of the libertine position. People should have free will, to take or leave traditional roles. But really, people shouldn't be pressured to go against them.

 

[ShieldWife]

I would agree, though I am also of the libertine position. People should have free will, to take or leave traditional roles. But really, people shouldn't be pressured to go against them.

Oh, I agree, people should have the freedom to live as they desire. Though I think that we would be better off if patriarchal values were more widely embraced and reinforced through social pressure.

 

[The Name of Love]

So I take it you don't 100% agree with that, but consider each position to be equally important, but fundamentally different?

I'm in favor of traditional patriarchy as was practiced by medieval Europeans. But I'd be lying if I didn't say I agreed a bit with her conception of matriarchy.

Well, we agree that the workplace is where men should be and the home where women should be. I can’t emphasize strongly enough that people who undervalue the important of the home are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Women abdicating their roles as mothers, homemakers, caretakers, and teachers of children is likely one of the things at the heart of the rot in modern Western society. Doing these things are likely more important than the jobs that most men do, aside from the fact that men’s jobs make a woman’s job possible.

Though as women are in charge of the home and children, which carries incredible unofficial power, men must have the official power to balance this. Not only in societal roles but as master over their wives, which both men and women want deep down.

Also, as we have larger societies, such as nations rather than tribes, women become less suited for leadership.

Women working in the home is what makes society function, actually.

 

[Captain X]

The egalitarian views I attack as "destructive" are "egalitarian attitudes towards women," otherwise known as gender egalitarianism. This elaborated in studies like this one, which states:

Then I'm going to go ahead and completely disagree with you. I am very much for people being treated equally under the law (which is why I still massively butt heads with the SJWs), and for being able to be whatever they desire to be as far as job/vocation/career. People should not be limited into roles based on what sex they happened to be born as. I am very much for equality of opportunity and meritocracy.

 

[Eric Heckathorn]

Though as women are in charge of the home and children, which carries incredible unofficial power, men must have the official power to balance this. Not only in societal roles but as master over their wives, which both men and women want deep down.

I dare you to tell my mother to her face that what she really wants is a man to be her master.

 

[ShieldWife]

I dare you to tell my mother to her face that what she really wants is a man to be her master.

Bring her on, I’ll tell her.

Of course, most western women would get mad if you told them that. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. If the typical woman knew what she wanted, women wouldn’t be getting increasingly unhappy as more and more of our demands are being met.

 

[Eric Heckathorn]

Bring her on, I’ll tell her.

Of course, most western women would get mad if you told them that. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. If the typical woman knew what she wanted, women wouldn’t be getting increasingly unhappy as more and more of our demands are being met.

Oh, she wouldn’t get mad at you. She’d laugh at you.

You’d probably prefer her to be angry.