Redistribution: Or. . How They Spread the Manure
Ask nearly any feminist what feminism really wants, and you will be told something like: "equality between men and women".
Men's rights agitators have taken this under consideration, and have notoriously risen to the occasion by demanding FORMAL equality between men and women. The feminist reply is, that formal equality masks actual inequality, and that to achieve genuine equality we must create formal inequality by means of redistribution.
"Redistribution" is a feminist keyword. So what does this word mean? It means the politically engineered transfer, from men to women, of both the tangible and intangible goods of life. Redistribution is a literally accurate name for the process which is occurring, because such a term could technically apply to nearly any form of dispersion. A bank robber, for example, will cause cash to be dispersed from a teller drawer to a canvas bag—which is to say, that the robber will cause the cash to be redistributed.
Bearing this in mind, it is easy to understand that if a woman sends you to prison on a false rape charge, it isn't REALLY injustice: it only SEEMS that way, but is in fact redistribution for the sake of equality. On the surface, it may appear like inequality, but in truth it is merely a loss of privilege. Superficial looks can be deceiving, as we see in this case.
Similarly, if a man is subjected to a predatory divorce where he is deprived of nearly all his property, his visitation rights with his children, and is legally placed under the burden of ruinous support and alimony payments which drive him to destitution and eventually into jail, it isn't REALLY injustice: it only SEEMS that way, but is in fact redistribution for the sake of equality. On the surface, it may appear like inequality, but in truth it is merely a loss of privilege. Once again, superficial looks can be deceiving.
Because you see, under patriarchy, "equitable treatment" or "equal protection under the law" were never truly equal in the first place. So in order to generate "equality", the "equity" needs to be redistributed. Which means that men appear to get "less" equity, and women "more"—but it isn't so bad because men were never really entitled to that "equity" in the first place. Do you see how that works? They had too much of it, and now women have gotten their fair share, so that things are at last EQUAL, and therefore men have no reason to complain. In the end, it turns out that feminism truly does work for equality as the feminists claim—just bear in mind that "equality" isn't necessarily the same thing as "equity". Anyway, now do you feel better about supporting feminism?
So long as any male citizen has anything that can remotely be described as "power", (the most fungible of the goods of life) some woman will potentially be thwarted in her fulfillment in some small way, and accordingly, that man's power will need to be "redistributed" so that the woman will have an "equal" opportunity to do whatever she was hindered from doing. And thus what superficially appears to be female supremacism, marches forward under the banner of what only seems like female narcissism.
Feminist "equality", in the end, comes to this: that by means of redistribution women will appear to hold an appreciably larger share, than do men, of the tangible and intangible goods of life. And if you take exception to the apparent disproportion, be assured that the seeming inequality is merely a formal inequality; that in a higher platonic heaven of redistributive justice, everything is in fact equal, given that men and women have been justly awarded their respective entitlements.
All right! Now I am going to drop the ironic funnyman mask, and get serious as hell. I offer a quick-kill argument against "redistribution", as follows: how, in the concrete practice of daily living, can we infallibly differentiate a bona-fide case of redistribution from a case where the woman is merely "taking advantage"? Where do we draw the line? On what criteria do we base the distinction?
OR . . . can it be, that it is morally impossible for any woman, ever, to take advantage of any man, ever? Can it be, that historical injustice against women-as-a-class entitles any woman to compensatively "get her own back" in any particular episode, and that if any man should object to this, he is using male privilege?
Which is it? Do women get to gouge men at will with no manner of constraint? Or does a principle of moral law intervene to place an upper limit on such proceedings? If the feminists cannot provide an answer here, then we are not bound to take them seriously when they throw the word "redistribution" at us.
Very well. If I have gotten this "redistribution" thing wrong, then the opposing sector had better get back and explain it more carefully, else I will consider myself to have spoken the final word on that subject.
Men's rights agitators have taken this under consideration, and have notoriously risen to the occasion by demanding FORMAL equality between men and women. The feminist reply is, that formal equality masks actual inequality, and that to achieve genuine equality we must create formal inequality by means of redistribution.
"Redistribution" is a feminist keyword. So what does this word mean? It means the politically engineered transfer, from men to women, of both the tangible and intangible goods of life. Redistribution is a literally accurate name for the process which is occurring, because such a term could technically apply to nearly any form of dispersion. A bank robber, for example, will cause cash to be dispersed from a teller drawer to a canvas bag—which is to say, that the robber will cause the cash to be redistributed.
Bearing this in mind, it is easy to understand that if a woman sends you to prison on a false rape charge, it isn't REALLY injustice: it only SEEMS that way, but is in fact redistribution for the sake of equality. On the surface, it may appear like inequality, but in truth it is merely a loss of privilege. Superficial looks can be deceiving, as we see in this case.
Similarly, if a man is subjected to a predatory divorce where he is deprived of nearly all his property, his visitation rights with his children, and is legally placed under the burden of ruinous support and alimony payments which drive him to destitution and eventually into jail, it isn't REALLY injustice: it only SEEMS that way, but is in fact redistribution for the sake of equality. On the surface, it may appear like inequality, but in truth it is merely a loss of privilege. Once again, superficial looks can be deceiving.
Because you see, under patriarchy, "equitable treatment" or "equal protection under the law" were never truly equal in the first place. So in order to generate "equality", the "equity" needs to be redistributed. Which means that men appear to get "less" equity, and women "more"—but it isn't so bad because men were never really entitled to that "equity" in the first place. Do you see how that works? They had too much of it, and now women have gotten their fair share, so that things are at last EQUAL, and therefore men have no reason to complain. In the end, it turns out that feminism truly does work for equality as the feminists claim—just bear in mind that "equality" isn't necessarily the same thing as "equity". Anyway, now do you feel better about supporting feminism?
So long as any male citizen has anything that can remotely be described as "power", (the most fungible of the goods of life) some woman will potentially be thwarted in her fulfillment in some small way, and accordingly, that man's power will need to be "redistributed" so that the woman will have an "equal" opportunity to do whatever she was hindered from doing. And thus what superficially appears to be female supremacism, marches forward under the banner of what only seems like female narcissism.
Feminist "equality", in the end, comes to this: that by means of redistribution women will appear to hold an appreciably larger share, than do men, of the tangible and intangible goods of life. And if you take exception to the apparent disproportion, be assured that the seeming inequality is merely a formal inequality; that in a higher platonic heaven of redistributive justice, everything is in fact equal, given that men and women have been justly awarded their respective entitlements.
All right! Now I am going to drop the ironic funnyman mask, and get serious as hell. I offer a quick-kill argument against "redistribution", as follows: how, in the concrete practice of daily living, can we infallibly differentiate a bona-fide case of redistribution from a case where the woman is merely "taking advantage"? Where do we draw the line? On what criteria do we base the distinction?
OR . . . can it be, that it is morally impossible for any woman, ever, to take advantage of any man, ever? Can it be, that historical injustice against women-as-a-class entitles any woman to compensatively "get her own back" in any particular episode, and that if any man should object to this, he is using male privilege?
Which is it? Do women get to gouge men at will with no manner of constraint? Or does a principle of moral law intervene to place an upper limit on such proceedings? If the feminists cannot provide an answer here, then we are not bound to take them seriously when they throw the word "redistribution" at us.
Very well. If I have gotten this "redistribution" thing wrong, then the opposing sector had better get back and explain it more carefully, else I will consider myself to have spoken the final word on that subject.
posted by Fidelbogen at 9:57 PM
26 Comments:
Redistribution? What ever happened to earning your keep?????
Feminists are so LOST. There is no dignity or "empowerment" in standing around with your hand out demanding redistribution of someone else's wealth. Be that your ex-husbands, the father of your child, or tax payer money!
The Feminists have turned women into total laughing stocks. We're nothing now, just perpetually b*tching bimbos that don't need to be taken seriously. Emancipated? Liberated? Yeah right! We're a joke in the eyes of society thanks to the idocy of Feminism!!
The way it used to be, when women were women and they engaged in their womanly arts with all of their natural womanly talents, my gender had DIGNITY. We had a noble, honored place in life. If any woman doubts this they just have to take a look through history to see what was written BY MEN with regards to mothers. And just have a look at the way that even some of the most powerful of men treated their mothers! WITH RESPECT.
Redistribution? We don't need the Feminist redistribution. What we need is for women to return to their noble state of dignified wives and mothers that were earning their keep ~ just like the rest of the men and women in society!!
Had to cut myself off in mid-rant so I could get dinner ready. Ok, how to keep this succinct...
Feminists like to say we housewives are "leeches" living off of our husbands, that we are burdens to our families and also to society. Even wrote a book about it called, "Get to work" (by Linda Hirshman)
But Feminists themselves have made it so that women are now much more expensive to family and society and a lot of that has to do with this redistribution mindset: (though I'm not touching on divorce or child support in this rant)
While they are persuing their careers they are demanding that the "government" (in other words, taxpayers) pay for child support and maternity leave and medical care... this Obama Care crap is 100% Feminist!! "Take care of us, Oh Sugar Daddy Government!"
I can't stand that crap because guess what? **Someone else's hard-working daddy and huband has to care for the career woman's kids and medical care and maternity leave!**
And what of the expense to families? Feminists say that working women are earning their keep and paying their way and we housewives are burdens.
But how many extra bills do working women generate because they are not at home? (I'm talking about the ones that work because they want to.) Bying all of that processed food instead of cooking from scratch via bulk goods + growing and canning veg etc. (Which is more expensive?? Living off of grocery stores is much more pricey then using bulk goods and having more self-sufficiency with food!)
What about the gas and food expenses for their commute and their eating away from home during the day? Not to mention the extra car insurance, car maintenence, cell phone bills, "work" clothes... It adds up!
And then the cost of child care and sometimes even hiring a housecleaner...
And what of the larger bills generated by living in a bigger, more expensive house because you have two incomes??
How much of the "working woman's" income goes to pay the **extra** bills she's creating by not being home? How much of her HUSBAND'S income is paying off the extra bills she creates by "working" (I guess housewives don't work?)
It all adds up! Being a career woman is very expensive. And if you're paying so much to work... what's the POINT of working outside of the home?
And what of the single mothers popping out kids and demanding welfare and child care and free college and subsidised rent, food, clothing...
This is what I was on about with "Women should return to earning their keep." Feminists claim "working women" *are* earning their keep ~ but I disagree!
And hey, if women want to continue working outside of the home then fine. I'm not about to get all Taliban about this.
But at LEAST Femenists could be HONEST and admit the facts about working/career women, redistribution, and the INequality that Feminism creates!
The same general arguments can also be made against redistributive "racism" and "anti-Semitism."
@CC:
Michelle, you have much spirit!! :)
However, let me be frank: your analysis needs a bit of coherency. So, I would like to offer one small correction. You say the following:
"Feminists like to say we housewives are "leeches" living off of our husbands, that we are burdens to our families and also to society...
No, only SOME feminists "like to say" such things. But the ruling ethos of feminism-at-large is, that women are entitled to be leeches. ( Often they will dress this up under words like "empowerment"- or "redistribution" as I wrote about in this post. )
The kind of feminism you seem to be describing is old-school, liberal feminism. And that is a brand of feminism which hasn't got much place in the projected radical female-supremacist future. It's the dodo bird of feminisms.
The REAL, underlying reason that feminists of all stripes attack traditional house-wifedom, is that women who insist on living that way are one of the biggest threats which feminism faces. Such women insist upon tradition, and tradition is exactly what feminism aims to destroy.
So, feminists who use that "leeches" rhetoric are either naïve quasi-marxist patsies who truly believe what they are saying, or else they are cynical, two-faced manipulators of conservative sensibilities per "pulling your own weight."
What feminism wants most rabidly to destroy is the social ecology of reciprocal obligation implied by traditional marriage. Feminism wants to replace "traditional wife-and-mother" with "babymama". Babymama, you see, gets to be a "leech" - a genuine, bona-fide leech par excellence, unlike traditional wife-and-mother who is about as far from a leech as can possibly be imagined.
(Of course, the vile expression "babymama" must be applied only to the swinish proletarian multitudes. For even though you'll find babymamas in the middle and upper classes also, don't you DARE call them by that name! Such are the linguistic hypocrisies. . .)
Again: Feminism ultimately WANTS women to be leeches. But foundational to that, it wants women to be "empowered" to do whatever the hell they want.
So "empowerment" is the main thing. And whether it's the empowerment of leeching the financial or spiritual lifeblood out of men, or the empowerment of being a "career woman" who can move freely through any workplace environment or any gamut of job categories, it's ALL GOOD as far as feminism is concerned.
Whatever exploits men directly, or whatever pushes men to the wall - either way, it is "empowering".
Anyway CC, since I noticed that you were gazing at the landscape through a rather narrow perspective-glass, I thought you might enjoy the view through a more wide-angled instrument. :)
It seems like every sector in society is claiming, "---- owes me!" Too many citizens are sitting around thinking they are owed for something - blacks are owed for being black and their parents having been slaves, women are owed for years and years of oppression... we have an "owe me" society and I hate it, on so many levels. It can be quite depressing, were it not for the fact that I know, in the end, "everyone gets theirs,".
"What feminism wants most rabidly to destroy is the social ecology of reciprocal obligation implied by traditional marriage. Feminism wants to replace "traditional wife-and-mother" with "babymama". Babymama, you see, gets to be a "leech" - a genuine, bona-fide leech par excellence, unlike traditional wife-and-mother who is about as far from a leech as can possibly be imagined."
I think one of the crucial aims of the men's movement should be to destroy welfare and any government agency that redistributes men's wealth to women. My logic goes like this:
Feminism attacked the nuclear family in order to "free women from what they called "slavery",i.e. marriage to a single man. In its place they substituted marriage to the state via welfare and state programs for single mothers.
In order to undo the damage to society that they have done, we need to kill their "family" of single mothers married to Big Daddy government. We need to reinstate the societal stigma that accompanied unwed mothers originally.
What do you think?
How ironic.
Dan Quayle was smarter than everyone.
heh.
@Anon:
"I think one of the crucial aims of the men's movement should be to destroy welfare and any government agency that redistributes men's wealth to women."
Anon, I will assume that you are not an undercover feminist attempting to "draw me out" upon certain political flashpoint issues. ;)
Okay, first item: not only is the so-called "men's movement" just one of many entities in the wider non-feminist rebellion, but last I looked, there were about a dozen different "men's movements" - meaning, no critical consensus. (Although I do recognize your comment as an essay toward such consensus!)
Second item: I would concur wholeheartedly that the plundering of men (on many levels) has got to stop. To me, it is axiomatic that whatever is good for men is bad for feminism - and vice-versa! And taking that a step further, whatever is bad for feminism is ultimately good for everybody, since, in a social ecology, if you poison half the population (men), then you can't help poisoning the other half (women) as well! And what feminism does is precisely to poison half the population - so it clearly follows that both halves will benefit from "anti" feminism!
Third item: you talk about "destroying" something, hence, your rhetoric is "destructive". Now, without disputing that a certain destruction needs to occur, I can think of better ways to present this to the world.The imperative need (as earlier stated) is to halt the plundering of men. And that is where the talk - and the action too - needs to get started! The best plan, I believe, is to identify the exact WAYS in which men are getting screwed by the system, and organize around those issues under a "pro-male" banner. And even though making it quite clear that "feminist ideology" or "the feminist worldview" are the root of the evils confronting us, we ought to make the term "pro-male" appear in our speech as often as we can. Because, to position yourself "pro" something is almost always stronger than to position yourself "anti". We already know that feminism is anti-male; therefore, to position ourselves as "pro-male" is just another way of positioning ourselves against feminism. However, it works a hardship against the opposing sector, because now they must fend off the imputation of being anti-male.
Fourth item: concerning the various institutions, bureaucracies, agencies and so on, which superintend the plundering of men under the veil of angelic rhetoric ( z.b. "best interest of the children",&c ): it is a sad fact that a lot of people (too many!) see these institutional fruits of feminist innovation as "good for women" (or children). Thus, to attack them directly or advocate their destruction is. . . politically dicey. And all the more so, if such goals are made planks in a political platform.
Therefore, our sector should simply focus its political rhetoric on remedying the manifest evils against men WITHOUT expressly advocating the slaughter of any sacred female entitlement milk cows. (In theory, the trick would be to weaken and undermine such institutions gradually, by the same proceedings which advance pro-male politics. In fact, this weakening and undermining effect would just naturally happen, all by itself, as a by-product.:)
Fifth item:
Quoting from your comment:
"We need to reinstate the societal stigma that accompanied unwed mothers originally."
This is politically dicey in the extreme. It is far too easily construed as 'misogyny', and should on no account be made a plank in a political platform.
Yet I realize that certain groups might go ahead and do just that very thing despite anything I might advise. Well, all right; so be it! Que sera, sera!
But the way I see it, if such a thing is "meant to be", then the collective mind will clamor for it when the time is right. (That is to say, when the zeitgeist is ready.)
Real quick before I go chase a baby:
I agree that this older feminism is the one that has been the most antagonistic (usually in writing and public speeches) towards housewives and other traditional things such as virginity and having many children etc.
And that today's younger feminists don't tend to write or give speeches against these things...
But I've personally come under fire myself from my peers (and younger women) for my housewifery etc. And when I was a virgin forget about it! You'd have thought that I was an ax murderer from the way I was treated by my peers!! THEY WOULDN'T LEAVE IT ALONE! The hostility made me a nervous wreck!
So that old-school feminism is still running strong through the minds and hearts of modern feminism even if they aren't writing or speeching about it. It's still there and very much in-your-face. Yes, not *everyone* but I rarely met a Feminist (or even just plain modern) woman that was respectful of housewives/virginity/chastity/many children...
The fight is still on!
Ack... where's diaper butt gone to now? Cheers gotta run
Ok, caught diaper butt and put the gate in the doorway. **Whew** I knew as soon as she started to crawl that life would get mighty interesting! Child: "Must...poke...electric...socket...can't...resist..."
Alrighty:
I actually agree with you about everything you said in your post and in you comments although I maintain that the hostility towards housewives etc is still there and going strong. **ONLY** these days it's not what the Feminists are writing and speeching against, so much as just plain living and breathing it on a daily basis without a second thought. (That make sense?)
Earlier I was just commenting from one facet of the problem as it's hard to formulate a well-rounded comment while chasing a baby LOL!
And cooking, and cleaning the house because we have house guests coming in TWO DAYS *gulp* while painfully preggo with twins. (You'd be AMAZED by how long nine months can draaaaag out...)
You wrote:
"What feminism wants most rabidly to destroy is the social ecology of reciprocal obligation implied by traditional marriage. Feminism wants to replace "traditional wife-and-mother" with "babymama". Babymama, you see, gets to be a "leech" - a genuine, bona-fide leech par excellence, unlike traditional wife-and-mother who is about as far from a leech as can possibly be imagined."
Er... that's a long quote but anyway, I AGREE. Yes, I understand exactly what you're saying and I understood it before I made my narrow comments yesterday. But like I said, I chose to latch on to, and comment about, just one small facet of the glittering Feminist jewel of "we must be able to do WHATEVER WE WANT at the expense of men" via redistribution etc etc etc. That FREE redistribution is put in jepordy (sp?) by us housewives. MUWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!
It's so nice knowing you can fight back... without even having to say one word in public or even write a book. All we women have to do is stay home and breed. **Evil Grin**
**Sigh** Feminism is not a one-issue problem. There's a lot that we must counter... Know that I'm aware of this.
Ok, back to cleaning. (We're actually bringing a 3-year battle-o-the-clutter to an END and our house is looking so good! Now I'll be able to do my housewifey thing without unpacked boxes of stuff everywhere. YES!!! Counter-Feminism at its most rewarding.)
"In order to undo the damage to society that they have done, we need to kill their "family" of single mothers married to Big Daddy government. We need to reinstate the societal stigma that accompanied unwed mothers originally.
What do you think?"
I agree wholeheartedly ~ only this needs to be done based on logic rather then, "let's get these b*tches back!" (I'm not saying that this is what you're advocating but I do see a lot of this in the "Men's Rights Movement.")
We do need a return to common sense, that's for sure. And single moms (and even married career women!) need to be abruptly weaned from the Government Sugar Daddy breast.
After seeing how so much of the stimulus package went to FEMINISTS... yeah anyway I'll shut up before I launch into a rant.
Why do I even care about Men's Rights, seeing as how I'm a woman?? Because I'm one of those women helping to raise the next generation and I want to do it right. I want my daughters to be real women and I want my sons to be MEN. I don't want the Feminists anywhere near any of them!!
@CC:
"So that old-school feminism is still running strong through the minds and hearts of modern feminism even if they aren't writing or speeching about it."
Feminism (meaning most feminists) are inherently antagonistic to "traditional housewifery" - and always will be.
However, the concept of "housewife as economic leech" is a strange criticism to be coming from ANY feminist, for the simple reason that feminism is all about turning women into leeches anyway.
So why, in that case, would THEY object to housewives being "leeches"?
There is no reason consistent with feminist ethics that they should do so.
But the reason that they DO do so, is because they are looking for a PHONY excuse to slam traditional housewifery. They don't want to admit their REAL reason.
And their REAL reason is, that traditional housewives actually REFUSE to do what the feminists want them to do.
And what do the feminists want them to do?
To be leeches, of course.*
*Mainly by cooperating with the feminist program to destroy traditional marriages. . .
*Which is precisely what traditional housewives will NOT do. And that is why feminists hate them and hypocritically call them "leeches" (despite the fact that "leeches" is what they want women to become anyway).
(Hopefully, all this makes a bit of sense!)
@CC:
Let's try this one more time.
Very simply:
Traditional housewives REFUSE to be leeches. . .
And THAT is why the feminists call them leeches!
Hi CC, . I know that a female politician (in NZ) recently brought up the fact (in government house) that politically we have never decided as whole societies if all women should work.
She is a single mother herself who worked while studying and raising her daughter alone. She worked hard and understands that some women should be able to stay at home if it is possible for many important reasons. She fights radical feminism while holding the positions in parliament around the social things like welfare, families commission, children's commission, child services and so forth.
I know that there is a big push to educate young women so they make better choices in life and I know that they do offer childcare for single mothers to stay in school.
These young mothers and even middle age mothers do need to work because there is only one adult in their homes to provide. (themselves)
Also ... personally, I think a wife can save money by growing vegetables and making meals from scratch and all the other things you stated in one of your comments. Also I think it is hard for 2 adults in the home to both have success in providing. If one helps the other in a career they both win further down the track. IMO
I don't understand fully where you are coming from with redistribution Fidelbogen.
I can see the point of men giving up when it comes to having 50% of seats in government given to women. If women did not have that before they will be taking men's past seats.
But I find it hard to see the logic that a man in prison for false rape charges is redistribution .... unless you are saying the laws have been changed from the accuser proving the accused is guilty to the accused proving the accuser is lying by proving their innocence. That's taking from men and giving to women.
Redistribution in a divorce settlement could show this, I suppose. Yet I wonder whether it is always about women taking from men. BTW, I don't have anything to do with alimony.
............
I think redistribution of tax money is more "Someone proposes to do something that will save the government money" or "proposes something that will create more revenue for the government".
Can you try to explain this a bit more, please?
@Anonymous 1:36 PM
In order to undo the damage to society that they have done, we need to kill their "family" of single mothers married to Big Daddy government. We need to reinstate the societal stigma that accompanied unwed mothers originally.
What do you think?
I have a thought on this.:D I can see where you are coming from. It is not good having so many dysfunctional families. Nor having single parents (mostly mothers) living off the tax payers.
Many countries have made it a law for single mothers to work or study for minimum 20 hours while childcare is provided. In Sweden it is pretty much compulsory to place your children in childcare at age 1.
There are/were so many different cultural practices on dealing with single mothers and their children. The most radical is stoning the woman to death after the baby is weaned off her.
In another culture women were sent away and hidden in some religious place until she had her child which was adopted out and she returned to society.
Then there was a culture where prior to contraception many marriages were performed because the couple had sex and was expecting a baby. Some say in those days men and women basically married to have sex.
And then there are cultures who welcomed children born out of wedlock into the larger family community very easily.
..........
I guess we need to respect ALL cultures these days and allow them to challenge their own past as well as embrace it.
So my question to you and myself is .... Who will we follow to do as YOU think should be done? Is it possible to find consensus amongst mixed multi cultural societies?
I don't think Gypsies shunned the natural ways of life. I know the Aborigines don't think it is right or the Maori or the Pacific Islanders. In fact, I see them challenging things that were done to them in the past now and I see documentaries, movies and things like 60 minute3s telling their tales. I see their children being brought back to them from as far away as America.
Ho hum, it is hard to know what to do. IMO
@Julie:
"I don't understand fully where you are coming from with redistribution Fidelbogen. . .
Can you try to explain this a bit more, please?"
Jules. . you are looking at the landscape through a narrow perspective-glass, just like Michelle.
All right, here's the big picture: the larger game plan of feminism (never mind what they SAY) is to carve male power down to the bare bones. Always has been.
"Redistribution" is just a sneaky word which they use to justify what is taking place. Academic feminists use this word a lot -- but the average person does not read their books and articles. . eh? ;)
Non-academic feminists also use this word. It trickled down from academia. . ;)
"Redistribution" is an ongoing, underlying process that is happening clear across the board, in all departments of life.
Quoting myself:
". . the politically engineered transfer, from men to women, of both the tangible and intangible goods of life."
Think about the phrase "tangible and intangible goods of life."
What does that phrase mean? Does it simply mean "money and government programs?"
Or does it mean far, far more? Does it mean something deeper?
What do you think? ;)
**One more thing: if the bit about "politically engineered transfer" is confusing, bear in mind that in the feminist universe, "the personal is the political".
This means that "politics" spreads into nearly every department of life. We're not just talking about 'politics' in the old narrow way -- although that, too, enters into it.
Go and read again "Notes:Toward a Counter-Feminist Theory of the State":
http://tinyurl.com/6e2tyf
Questions? ;)
"Anon, I will assume that you are not an undercover feminist attempting to "draw me out" upon certain political flashpoint issues. ;)"
You assume correctly.
"Okay, first item: not only is the so-called "men's movement" just one of many entities in the wider non-feminist rebellion, but last I looked, there were about a dozen different "men's movements" - meaning, no critical consensus. (Although I do recognize your comment as an essay toward such consensus!)"
Naturally. I am aware that there is effectively no such thing as a "men's movement". That is to say, we have no political organ, and operate separately and independently from one another.
As soon as these disparate groups solidify,we will need an agenda. We will need a concrete method for reversing the effects of feminism efficiently and quickly.
"Third item: you talk about "destroying" something, hence, your rhetoric is "destructive". Now, without disputing that a certain destruction needs to occur, I can think of better ways to present this to the world."
Yes,I understand that from a strategic point of view my words do not convey the proper tone for introducing these ideas to a world that is fearful of change and thoroughly steeped in deference to women.I believe we are on the same wavelength regarding what needs to be done regardless.
"Fourth item: concerning the various institutions, bureaucracies, agencies and so on, which superintend the plundering of men under the veil of angelic rhetoric ( z.b. "best interest of the children",&c ): it is a sad fact that a lot of people (too many!) see these institutional fruits of feminist innovation as "good for women" (or children). Thus, to attack them directly or advocate their destruction is. . . politically dicey. And all the more so, if such goals are made planks in a political platform."
I see where you're coming from.
"Therefore, our sector should simply focus its political rhetoric on remedying the manifest evils against men WITHOUT expressly advocating the slaughter of any sacred female entitlement milk cows. (In theory, the trick would be to weaken and undermine such institutions gradually, by the same proceedings which advance pro-male politics. In fact, this weakening and undermining effect would just naturally happen, all by itself, as a by-product.:)"
That is what I would recommend as well.
"Quoting from your comment:
"We need to reinstate the societal stigma that accompanied unwed mothers originally."
This is politically dicey in the extreme. It is far too easily construed as 'misogyny', and should on no account be made a plank in a political platform."
Haha,God no. Here I was speaking of "we" as a society. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, your words were most edifying.
This essay left me cold...this redistribution concept sounds very similar to the cultural revolution China experienced under Mao...
I agree with most of what you've written but the final product of all of this negativity has done little but leave a sour taste in my mouth. I left the MGTOW forum for exactly this reason. Life is bleak enough without this problem. It seems that little is being done on the ground to promote MRA. Sure there are lot's of writing on websites and blogs, but what about action? What can we do to swing the pendulum back in our direction?
@Anon 1:26:
"It seems that little is being done on the ground to promote MRA. Sure there are lot's of writing on websites and blogs, but what about action? What can we do to swing the pendulum back in our direction?"
Briefly, this war is a lot bigger than just "MRA".
That's why I call it the non-feminist revolution.
So. . keeping the broad picture in view, here is what I think needs to happen:
We need to form COALITIONS among a diversity of groups with different specializations, and even different political orientations.
Differences must be set aside in the interest of a common cause.
Step Number One is to keep preaching and agitating in order to get more and more people on board. But, you might ask, on board WHAT?
That is where step number two steps in. . .
Step Number Two is to get "everyone" to agree on what the CORE of feminism actually IS. Why? Because we mustn't waste our firepower (hence our effort) on a bunch of wrong targets -- possibly working at cross purposes and negating our efforts!
More steps will follow. . .
Society acts under religious principles - even if people claim not to have any, that is their religious principle and they either act upon that or upon the principles which current society tells them is acceptable. The only way to return society towards correct order is a return to Catholicism, whereby by society will be acting according to Catholic social principles (following the ten commandments, right order of families and the home, just practices in business, etc...)
I can't say I agree with a stigma of unwed mothers in a puritanical sense, but it makes sense to me that in a correctly ordered society, unwed mothers would necessarily be scandalous. Hate the sin, not the sinner I say, but historically, even Christian societies, not specifically Catholic societies, have severely ostracized unwed mothers. It is extremely hard for a person not to judge one who acts against the accepted social norms in flagrante... Which is why at the moment ultra conservatism, calling for a return to patriarchal values and the patriarchal system, are so unpopular.
Any change can only come by way of a grass roots movement - more than anything else, we simply have to breed out the feminists and homosexuals. It shouldn't be too hard to do given the rampant use of contraception and abortion. We will reach a point where there will be an exponential growth of those who want an ordered society. Personally, I see a civil war coming in this country over this issue.
On a side note, I find it interesting that women see abortion as a women's rights issue. I read somewhere that God gave women "that time of the month" in order to keep the power they have in being able to carry children from going to their heads. I don't know if I agree with that, but it makes more sense as a source of female power than whatever feminism claims. Considering that idea, women using abortion and contraception to neuter themselves seems entirely self-destructive of what they are trying to do as feminists.
@Fidel,
Go and read again "Notes:Toward a Counter-Feminist Theory of the State":
I needed to read that again.;) T.U
Or does it mean far, far more? Does it mean something deeper?
What do you think? ;)
I think I like that portrait very much.;)
And, oh yes, it means far, far more ... it is much, much deeper.
@trent13:
I have noted with interest your most recent comment, which was intriguing and informative, and for which I thank you. However: it seemed somewhat beyond the political focus area which is the especial mandate of this blog. . .
And well . . we counter-feminists, as we navigate the treacherous river channels in our political piloting trade, need to practice a certain 'message discipline', if you follow my thinking. ;)
Accordingly, I have kept your comment in what I call the alpha channel. . .
Still, I would like to touch upon a few points. (For anybody else reading this, it will be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation!;)
It is indeed as you say, that society -- or any human group for that matter -- acts under 'religious principles' of one kind or another. Recall that the etymological meaning of 'religion' is roughly "the tie that binds". Or as I like to say, religion is what binds people together in a system of common life. Admittedly, some systems are better than others -- particularly if an ordered society be deemed a desideratum. (And it surely beats me why anybody would wish to live in a disordered society!)
And so I would strongly concur, in general terms, that out-of-wedlock motherhood is not the sort of thing that ought to be generally encouraged -- particularly not as a growth industry. It seems to me that OOWM is the sort of thing that we need less of in the world, rather than more. And part of the solution might be, to make it less convenient.
Finally, I'm not surprised that (some) women see abortion as a "women's rights" issue. As the saying goes: "My body, my choice". And in their minds, that makes it a right. Can't argue with their logic -- it's as much a right, to them, as something else might be to somebody else. And a source of power (all right, "empowerment") as well: objectively considered, the power to choose or not choose pregnancy is a power indeed; no argument there!
As for feminism, it claims anything and everything possible as a source of power for women. Feminism is, er...pardon me... quite "catholic" in that respect! ;) Yes, I say anything and everything: it need not even be philosophically consistent, provided only it counts as a source of female power in some way.
How many times have I heard feminist philosophers, poets, goddess theorists, moon-worshipers et al, gush rhapsodic over 'Wombyn's Mystical Power to Create Life', or suchlike? Heaps and tons of times!
I call it "cosmic womanhood".
"Men's rights agitators have taken this under consideration, and have notoriously risen to the occasion by demanding FORMAL equality between men and women. The feminist reply is, that formal equality masks actual inequality, and that to achieve genuine equality we must create formal inequality by means of redistribution."
Isn't this just a complicated way of saying: "We [women] want equality, but only when it suits us"?
Fidelbogen: I'm already there. I totally agree with you. Feminists want women to be leeches, housewives refuse to do so... it's all so painfully obvious if women would just LOOK!
F I reprinted my post only because I occasionally accidentally delete my comments (quite aggravating actually) and then don't know if they took or not.
However, I take it that you believe that there must be a separation between Church and state, given that you feel the need to ensure that religion (seeing as how it is even more volatile than feminism?) is not part of the discussion? I suppose to be able to focus on the issue of feminism I could see how one would think that was necessary, but for myself, I find it impossible to hold a "what's wrong with the world" discussion and exclude religion from it. So, at least you will know what to expect from me. ;) (not that every comment of mine will have a specifically religious reference...)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home