Redistribution: Or. . How They Spread the Manure
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.