A few people have emailed me concerning the above piece suggesting, for example, that equality can be achieved in, say, matters to do with pay. After all, they argue, is it not 'equality' for men to be paid the same rates as women for doing the same jobs?

Well. The answer is No!

It might be fair. And it might make people happy. But it does not follow that such a thing would be a mark of 'equality'.

Indeed, the more that one drills down in search for 'equality', the more hopeless does the search become.

For example, if men and women are doing the same job for the same number of hours, then a superficial analysis would suggest that they should get paid the same amount.

But, should they?

For example, should a man who has been lawyering or bricklaying for 20 years be paid the same as a woman who has been doing such jobs for only 10 years?

Should a man who can carry two bricks in his wheelbarrow earn the same pay as a woman who can only carry one?

If you answer Yes to either of the above questions, then I would argue that your notion of 'equality' is very strange.

But let us look at a simple job, where skill and expertise are fairly irrelevant to the efficiency with which the job is done - though, quite frankly, there cannot be many jobs like this.

Hmm.

OK.

Let's go for dishing out tea in a canteen.

Should men and women get paid the same for dishing out tea in a canteen if they work for the same hours and if they both do the job equally well?

Well, of course, I would say Yes.

But so-called 'equality' fanatics, like the feminists, might well disagree, as they keep drilling down in search for 'inequality'..

They might discover, for example, the following.

1. They might discover that more men than women do this job. And from this they could conclude that 'equality' between men and women has not been achieved.

2. The statistics might show that the women tend to spend more of their money on clothes for the job than do men, and that, therefore, women should be paid more - often by sneaking the money back to them through the tax system.

3. The statistics might show that women have to take more days off work for childcare reasons or for hormonal problems and so they ought to be compensated in some way for this.

4. The statistics might show that women spend more time mopping up than do the men ...

And so on and on it can go.

My point is that the search for 'equality' is never-ending, and that in the process of searching for this impossible goal, the stirring up of male hatred is a major consequence - and, indeed, in the case of feminists, it is a purposeful aim.

Furthermore, given that 'equality' can never be achieved (even in simple matters to do with pay) the never-ending search for it by the feminists in all sorts of areas will forever involve the stirring up of hatred towards men in all sorts of areas.

And seasoned men's activists will know that whatever statistical differences are found between men and women, the feminists will always manage to stir up hatred towards men on the basis of them.

And so, for example, if more men are found working in this canteen than women, the feminists will argue that there is a 'glass ceiling' that prevents women from taking up this job, but if there are more women than men working in it, then they will argue that the pay is too low compared to other more male-dominated jobs.

Either way, they will stir up hatred towards men.

And let me tell you what would happen if women throughout the nation - as a whole - ever earned more than men in their jobs; i.e. the alleged gender wage gap was reversed.

The feminists would argue that the women were paying more in taxes, and that this was unfair!

............

Indeed, moves in this direction are already being suggested in certain lofty circles ...

"Here is a policy proposal that should make the two camps agree: reduce income taxes on women and increase, by less, income taxes on men in a way that holds total tax revenue constant.

............

And if ever there came a time that men spent more hours at home looking after the children, the feminists would suddenly discover that children were not a burden but a pleasure!

"This is outrageous," they would say. "Those poor women are out at work while the men are at home sitting in front of the TV and having a good time bonding with their children."

You have to understand the mindset of these revolting dysfunctional women. They are driven by a hatred of men. This hatred is the only thing that unites them and it is the only thing that explains what they say, think, and do.

For example, recall Hillary Clinton's speech to the First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador ... 

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. ..."

But if more women than men were actually killed in wars, does anyone seriously think that Hillary Clinton would have then said that men were the primary victims of war?

Of course not.

She would have emphasised the greater number of deaths of women during wars and made a great song and dance about it.

These men-hating feminists will always attempt to stir up male hatred whatever the situation. It does not matter who gets paid more or who gets killed more, these nasty wimmin will use any differences to stir up hatred towards men.

Indeed, when a man kills his partner, he is deemed to be a violent thug. But when she kills him, it is still said that this is because he was a violent thug.

And even though women initiate most divorces, the message from the media and the politicians is that men are abandoning their families. But if men initiated most divorces it would again be said that men are abandoning their families.

If boys do better than girls educationally then it is argued that there is bias in the system. If girls do better than boys then it is argued that this is so because girls work harder and/or because they are more intelligent.

Feminists will always twist the evidence and the facts to demonise men.

And they will do this, basically, for two reasons.

Firstly, most of the leading feminists are severely dysfunctional 'women' and/or they are a particular type of lesbian. (And, in both cases, it is quite clear from their past histories and their rhetoric that they positively hate men - in some cases, perhaps with some justification as a result of experience

Secondly, there are now, literally, billions of dollars, numerous empires, and millions of jobs that depend on the public swallowing the idea that women need to be defended from men in some way or other. And the feminists (together with many others) can only maintain these luxuries by continually stirring up hatred toward - and a fear of - men.

Finally, it is worth emphasising that you can never have 'equality' between two things that are not equal by definition. And so, for example, you can have equality among 'people', but not between 'men' and 'women'.