There is no decline in the quality of society, not really. That's because, in one sense, society does not really exist. It's a delusion, an illusion, and barely even a shared one by the people who believe they are 'part of' the same society.
There was society. There were nations. Now we just have countries.
Back when people were united with common beliefs and common goals, nationhood meant something. They were a unified tribe competing against other unified tribes.
Today we have multiculturalism, where everyone is an "individual" and they form smaller tribes within the whole that compete against each other for the whole.
You live beside people who have a completely different idea of what 'society' is and is not than you do.
Thanks to seeking equality and multiculturalism, that is true today. It was not true in the past.
Equal rights means equal responsibilities.
No, it really doesn't. Go talk to anyone discussing "equal rights" and talk about responsibilities with them. They'll draw blanks.
If you want to argue that there is a modern and popular concept of equal rights that excludes equal responsibilities, then you have a point.
It might have started earlier, but it definitely started in 1920 when women got suffrage without conscription, when the SCouTS ruled in 1918 that conscription was the responsibility for the right of suffrage.
but there is room for legitimate misunderstanding in this situation.
The biggest of which is how people think responsibilities can be equalized between men and women when the disposability between them cannot. Therefore, the whole argument of equal rights is a false premise.
Nobody behaves the same, whether it be men as a group and women as a group, individuals, families, language groups/cultures.
Generalizations exist.
Bigots think there are no exceptions.
Idiots think everyone is an exception.
I am neither.
There is no need whatsoever to restrict rights or grant or withhold rights from one 'group' or another based on an assumption of their behaviours.
Right, because who wants to have enough doctors.
Instead, we can throw out that ridiculous idea and let everyone do as they will
And pay the price for it with a failing society. I accept that there are exceptions, which is why I prefer social rather than legal restrictions of roles, but having no restrictions is failing us and leading to our downfall.
What you consider a waste of resources, I might see as important to keeping individual choice and freedom as the primary goal of a legal system.
So you value "choice" more than 30% waste in college educations? You value "choice" more than a 2000% increase in government size? You value "choice" more than you value the restrictions of Constitutional rights?
some of us would rather see it burn than return to the structures and legal realities that you see it as having declined from.
See, here's the problem: once it burns down it is going to return to the reality of strictly enforced gender roles. I will say that again: we are returning to gender roles. Period. The only question is if we do that by choice or if we are forced into it.
But on top of that: fuck you. You'd rather have society burn down, taking everyone with it, rather than not getting your way? Some moral choice there. That the problem with kids like you, you are a 5 year old screaming that you want what you want and damn the consequences.
I'm not going to just nod with assent when someone comes along and publicly states Red Pill is against equality.
The very premise of TRP is against equality. Otherwise, all sexual strategies would be equally valid, no?
but there's nothing about a realistic view of human sexual strategy that excludes a basic equality under the law for people that transcends their sex
Other than recognizing the fundamental differences between the sexes.
whether or not they are treated as disposable by other people - as long as they are treated equally disposable by those rights and the laws meant to enforce them.
Which will never happen, due to the fundamental differences between the sexes.
I'll grant it's a valid argument to say that is not what is happening - but I think you'd have to establish that corruption of equality as unavoidable before you can go about saying equal rights cannot work.
"Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin (legal download, book is out of copyright).
"Unwin analyzes 80 primitive cultures and a number of past empires and finds that, without exception, the level of advancement or decline of all cultures is directly tied to the level of regulation of female sexuality. His historical examples include the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons (600s - 900s), and English (1500s - 1900s). In every example, these cultures began to rise when women were required to be virgins at marriage and to be monogamous for life. All of these cultures began to decline when women were given rights, were not required to be virgins at marriage, when divorce was common, and marriage was in decline."
Which is something you may have done, but I've certainly not seen it done to my satisfaction
Try giving this a read (the link inside to Baumeister's speech is now here), or this which goes down the lists of types of equality.