Originally posted on The Spearhead blog by W.F. Price. The Spearhead was a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy the content please consider a donation.
I’m going to stay on this subject because it’s very important that people think about it. Concepts matter, and the idea of gender equality is a concept that has done a great deal of damage over the years.
First, let’s lay out a few reasons gender equality is undesirable.
For normal people, sex differences (inequalities) enhance life. Men like feminine characteristics in women, and women like masculine characteristics in men. These characteristics are what define “men” and “women.” Make men and women equal, and the sexes cease to exist. For normal people, this would be a nightmare.
Say we did manage to eliminate “gender” and men and women became indistinguishable. Such a society, if sexual at all, would be homosexual by definition. Homosexuality would not be a paraphilia, but rather the default for all human sexuality.
Additionally, the phenotypic diversity of the human species would be considerably diminished. Instead of having two major types of humans, there would only be one androgynous “type.” This sounds repugnant to me, but perhaps some people like this idea.
Finally, and this is counterintuitive but would be true, the balance the sexes provide to both the species and society would be gone, and humanity could easily veer off in grotesque and strange directions.
Gender equality in practice would be a dystopia by most people’s standards.
If equality is therefore undesirable (and we must include legal equality, because law that defies nature is tyrannical, bad law), then what values can we strive for regarding the sexes?
How about the very values nature intended:
Balance and harmony.
Men and women are different, and these differences balance the species and provide communities with common cause. If masculine tendencies go too far, feminine notions restrain them, and likewise the reverse. The differences between men and women are not a curse on humanity, but rather an essential part of what keeps us centered and stable. Making us equal removes that advantage and weakens communities, which may provide an explanation for why hostile elites are so inclined to support gender equality: it makes us easier to exploit.
I have to turn once again to legal equality, because commenters are still writing in to support this idea. Everyone, it seems, agrees that legal equality of the sexes is a wonderful thing (even though it is repeatedly rejected at the ballot box and in the courts). This idea is so pervasive in our society that hardly anyone stops to question it. But if they did, and they spent some time thinking about it, they would start to see problems with it just as I have.
Law is intended to be a reflection nature. There’s an ancient concept called “natural law,” long held in esteem in the former Christian civilization, that holds that there is a universal law, distinct from laws of custom (“common law” in the English-speaking world), based on the natural world. Aristotle is generally considered to have developed this idea, and it inspired, among other things, the US Constitution.
While natural law has been used to justify concepts of human rights (i.e. “natural rights”), laws are longer valid when severed from their roots in the natural world, because this brings chaos and injustice. The Chinese have a similar concept concerning divine favor; when rulers fall out of favor with heaven, as evidenced by calamities and natural disasters, they are said to have lost their mandate, and it is time for a change.
So, when we begin to defy nature itself, and take it upon ourselves to do foolish things such as declare men and women equal, we undermine the basis of our law, and bring misery on our heads. This is what is behind the dismal state of relations between the sexes in the contemporary West.
As a simple example, much of our law is based on the physical nature of things. If we were to ignore the distinctions between these things, injustice results. If someone were to attack another with a knife, we would hold it to be assault with a deadly weapon. Now say someone attacked with a spatula. The spatula and knife could be roughly the same size and weight, and made from the same material, so perhaps the crime should be the same. Would that be fair? Of course not, because regardless of these superficial similarities, knives and spatulas have different properties that matter a great deal in the real world. So do men and women, and if we don’t take these different properties into account the law is all but useless.
Therefore, for the good of mankind and the benefit of society, and for justice and human happiness, we must reject the notion of sex equality. Instead, we should strive for a balance that benefits both societies and the individuals within them, and to achieve this balance the sexes must be seen and treated as they are: distinct and different from each other.