Femi-Speak. Understanding the Misuse of Language.

2009-09-09
By

I have written before about the capture, torture and doing away with words under Feminism. Heck, I even wrote a poem about it.

Changing the meanings of words is a favoured strategy of feminists, learned from Derrida, a ‘philosopher’. Hah !  French of course. But we had better be able to spot their strange manglings to be able to argue successfully. “Oohh La la”  it ain’t.

Water-boarding words or sending them to exotic locations where water-ski-ing isn’t a  sport, and where dusky maidens tantalise with promises of being one of the 72  awiting the pure and murderous, has its place in Femi-world even while being excoriated by Obama when seeking Truth. Truth has been garrotted already.

I have a favourite philosopher in the MRM to counter-balance the mini-Derridas of the world and their forked-tongue followers. I won’t mention his name as he might get Guru-status and everyone think I am starting a fan club. Some already know of him and I am occasionally driven to put his words in my mouth, so tasty they are.

So, here he is on ‘Equality’,  that poor masculine word, “his scarred skin, a testament. Parchment.  Burned Beyond Recognition”. In this treatis ( a word to look up, jon) he shows just how mutlti-tasking the word has become when linked to other mendacious concepts.

Redistribution: Or. . How They Spread the Manure

By Counter-Feminist | Tue, Sep 08 2009, 12:57 AM

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.

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.

487 views

  • http://rationalmechanisms.com/ dwc

    ” 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”?”

    By requiring stricter definitions that preclude the statistical.
    And adhere to the clear definitions we do have, like fraud, perjury, and conspiracy.
    Here is new word for you – free of charge.
    Juris-spiracy : a conspiracy by the legal system to promote felonious behavior under the cloak of “Civil Proceedings”

  • Globalman

    Gents, it’s simple.
    ‘Redistribution’ only takes place through the corrupted guvment and courts. In former british colonies you have the right to refuse jurisdiction of the corrupted guvment and courts.

    Learn the law, the real law called common law. Remember, ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’. Well your guvments are hiding common law from you. In the UK you will be arrested and carried away from any crowd you have assembled if you mention the common law rights of the people. THAT is how scared they are of men finding out about their common law rights. Whatever your guvment wants to hide from you? It’s probably a good thing to find out about. Common Law. It’s worth finding out about.

    Gents. You can learn how to refuse the courts generous offer to have you pay alimony, child support and income tax.

    Keep your hard earned ‘money’. Withdraw from the ‘legal system’. Let it collapse in on itself. Men are having early success in courts refusing the jurisdiction of the courts to enforce alimony and child support.

    Try watching Robert Menards ‘Bursting the Bubbles of Government Deception’ on google video. It will get you started. Hopefully MND will run some stories on this. There are now reports of judges closing cases of all kinds when asked if they are presiding under oath. They don’t like being asked if they are presiding under oath because their default position is they are not.

    Remember the ‘redistribution’ of your wealth relies on you being ignorant of common law. You may want to educate yourself on this very important topic.

  • Jay R

    Amfortas,

    On the money, as usual.

    “A word means what I intend it to mean — nothing more and nothing less.”

    Feminism’s success has largely depended upon its successful control, if not outright monopolization, of language. With control of language comes control of thought. She who frames the terms of the argument wins the argument. And when the very definition of a word can be legally changed to suit your ideology, victory is certain.

    Consider how the common meanings of the following words and phrases have been officially altered or manipulated in the service of promoting liberal and feminist ideology (and justifying ever-greater government intrusion into personal matters):

    – Marriage: Courts and legislatures in various states have simply changed the definition of this word from what it has always been.

    – Family: A man need no longer apply. The Head of the Household is now the State.

    – Domestic Abuse: Glaring is now effectively the same as a punch to the nose. But only if HE glares, of course.

    – Rape: They drink together and have sex. He is a rapist. She is a victim.

    – Feminism: The dictionary definition is meaningless and misleading when one considers the reality of the supremacist hate movement “women’s rights” has become (always has been?).

    – Sexist: According to feminists, something only a man can be.

    – Pay Gap: None exists. “Earnings” or “Work” gap is accurate, and thus is avoided so that inferred “inequality” can be remedied — at men’s expense.

    – Battered Wife Syndrome: By definition, not something from which a male could ever suffer. (men are never “hen-pecked,” much less beaten, after all!)

    – Minority: The truest sign of absolute power. Women, the MAJORITY, simply designated themselves to be the opposite. It was very convenient, since everyone knows that every minority is oppressed by the “majority”, i.e., white men — who are in fact the minority. But never mind. Just shut up and follow along.

    – Anti-Feminist / MRA: Rabid, bitter, angry “Woman-Hater,” pure and simple. Fearsome and dangerous.

    And so forth.

    Globalman,

    I agree with you that feminism is an “useful idiot” encouraged to serve the purposes of government and business, and the “alpha males” who run them. Keeping other men down and in their service working and paying taxes is the goal, and they are happy to have most women join most men at the “party.”

    What will women get for their increasing wage-enslavement and banishment from family? The same thing that the men have always received — a very few of their number will be admitted to the echelons of power. A “front-woman” fallacy will join the existing “front-man fallacy.” When a few women gain power, then “power” can be ascribed to the entire sex — per the “logic” of feminism.

    But, anyone who climbs on board your “common law” bandwagon is on the way to legal disaster, including prison. Take it from an attorney. Statutes override “common law” anywhere they conflict. Judges are NOT receptive to arguments they consider “nut-baggery.”

    Nor do I believe that Alphas are engaged in an explicit, overarching conspiracy. They don’t need to. Mutual self-interest is enough to drive the process. In the same way, feminism is not a single conspiracy. It is instead a multi-headed Hydra, which is why it is so difficult to vanquish — cut off one head, and two more grow in its place.

  • Jean

    Jay R,
    I like you analogy to a Hydra. More and more, I think it applies to many of our problems – bureacucracy, for example, and government encroachment.

    It makes a solid, point too – as the only method of killing the heads was to cut them off and then sear the wound shut.

    Personally, I’m getting to that point – but I’m young still. My father, pushing 72 this year, made the point that the young are always revolutionaries. It’s when the old men – like the ones he hangs out with and talks to – start talking revolution that you REALLY need to worry. They already know the costs, and have far more to lose than a young man in some ways – families, grandchildren, children, etc. And if they are willing to risk that much, as well as their health, wealth, lives? Then things WILL come crashing down…

  • Globalman

    Hi Jay R,
    “What will women get for their increasing wage-enslavement and banishment from family?”
    Actually, if you knew what was really going on, you would know the answer that there are men who are trynig to enslave them or kill them. Many men are trying to stop that from happening.

    “But, anyone who climbs on board your “common law” bandwagon is on the way to legal disaster, including prison. Take it from an attorney. Statutes override “common law” anywhere they conflict. Judges are NOT receptive to arguments they consider “nut-baggery.”"

    Jay. We already have cases of judges fleeing their courtroom in humiliation once the fraud is exposed to their court staff. That judges do not like the court being transformed from a UCC court to a common law court is beside the point. It is interesting you bring up judges reactions because it demonstates judges are not judging law impartially. It took me a while to understand why my family law lawyers kept trying to frighten me with ‘what the judge might do if he gets upset’. So thank you for pointing out to the readers here that the first thing attourneys try and do is scare people of what the judge might do if you ‘upset him/her’. They will call a man invoking common law in a court all sorts of names, sure. But since they have no jurisdiction over a human being it hardly matters.

    Gents…to be clear. UCC 1-103 states that UCC supplements any existing law unless it specifically over-rides it. So Jay is a liar. It is easy to look up the fact that Common law is superior to statutes in ALL cases. My family law lawyer tried the same tactic. By the way. Statutes do NOT apply to human beings, they can only apply to ‘persons’ which are, in fact, corporations created by governments. We are having success at this…and the entire ‘legal system’ is attempting to disparage those who bring this good news to men.

    Jay. If you are an attourney in the US you have committed treason by swearing allegience to a foreign power, the British.

    Gents. Here is the UCC rule that is appropriate.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-103
    (b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions.

  • Jon

    you think I’m kidding when I say I have to look up all the fancy words. I’m a ‘puter guy and spend all my spare energy reading programming books. I also talk to a lot of people who speak english as a second language. A big vocabulary causes more problems than it solves for me. The world has changed and the only people who speak fancy-ass english are people without private sector jobs, lawyers, and folks with no useful skills. You heard me.

  • Mr.K

    @Post 3 Jay R.
    First, I like your theorem of Feminism. ” Their Modus Operandi “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours belongs to both of us”.
    While I’m not an attorney , I have BA in Goverment iand Politics and Para-Legal certificate.
    I don’t quite understand Poster # 5 point about judges fleeing courtroom, Is 5 referring to federal or state courts? Divorce and custody is usually handled by state courts, unless there is international issue as one party fleeing the jurisdiciton.
    “Joint custory” was a big battle in out state about 25 years ago. Feminist argued that judges did not have power to grant joint custody since it was not in our state code. After about six legilative session a bill passed and was signed by the governor including “joint custody” in the code in 1986.
    Link by Michie to various state codes.
    http://michie.lexisnexis.com/

  • Globalman

    Mr K.
    “I don’t quite understand Poster # 5 point about judges fleeing courtroom.”
    Then please allow me to make it clear. The legal systems in the former british countries is corrupt from one end to the other. All the members of the ‘Law Society’ know this. Junior people like police officers, bailifs, sherrifs, court recorders etc generally do not and act in good faith.

    Many men are now exposing this corruption by challenging the jurisdiction of judges over men who are sovereigns in courts. A judge in the current court systems running Uniform Commercial Code have no jurisdiction over a man who is a sovereign and knows it.

    When judges are challenged to prove their jurisdiction, which they can not, they do everything from have the man kidnapped and placed unlawfully in custody to flee from the courtroom in humiliation because their criminal and fraudulent activities have been exposed. You might not have heard of the sharp rise in judges committing suicide. The newspapers are not publishing this.

    So. Let me make it really simple. All courts in former british countries operating under what is called Uniform Commercial Code masquerading as ‘law’. Statutes and legislation are fraudulently presented as ‘law’. ALL ‘feminist advantge’ propagated through the ‘legal’ system and sold to you as ‘law’ can be safely ignored by men who are sovereign and know how to assert and protect their rights. This article seemed to be a really good place to make this comment.

    Your guvment wants to keep the secret of what your rights really are because while you are ignorant of your rights you can not defend them. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” All members of the ‘LAW Society’ will do their best to tell you that you have to obey THEIR laws. Why? You are not a member of the LAW Society so why should you be bound by THEIR laws.

    The fraud of the legal system is one of the most important topics in the world today. But you will find almost no-one talking about it. Try http://www.thinkfree.ca.

  • Mr. K

    @ Globalman,
    Thank you for clarification of your views. I also visited the link at the end of your post. It is unusual, but certainly free speech. But if it would advocate violence, then it may be actionable by those you so vigorously disagree with.
    Perhaps you agree that under our system the U.S. Constituion is the law of the land. While former Chief Justice reportedly told to a new Justice “The Constitution is what we say it is”, It is the reality. The only way to alter a ruling grounded in Constitution is by a constituional amendment. Examples. Roe v. Wade, Texas v. Johnson, U.S. V. Morrison etc. (ruling civil action of VAWA unconstituional) But if the Supreme Court is interpreting an Act of Congress, the Congressional “intent” can be overriden like in Grove City College v. Bell.
    I wish you well in your advocacy. While we may disagree I hope we do it in the spirit of debate, not peronal issues or insults. Your writing is very powerful and convincing. Best wishes.

  • Globalman

    Mr K/Men,
    Robert-Arthur: Menard and the ThinkFree movement promote peaceful removal from the existing corrupt systems. Robert has proposed a ‘peace keeping’ entity he calls C3PO to which he has also invited existing Canadian ‘Police Officers’. You can’t get much more peaceful and co-operative than asking the existing ‘Police Officers’ to join you by taking an oath as ‘Peace officers’ to maintain the peace. Can you? Men like me are doing all we can to persuade the ‘bad guys’ not to use weapons. But my opinion is that is a forlorn hope unless we can wake up at least 5% of men to the real issues.

    “Perhaps you agree that under our system the U.S. Constituion is the law of the land.”
    Mr. K. No. I do not agree. This is false. It is a common mis-conception which has been sold by your guvment. “The law of the land” is Common Law. Your Constitution has nothing to do with the law of the land. It increasingly has nothing to do with the ‘law’ being practiced in your courts. I am sure you are aware of VAWA. This legislation is practiced in your courts and it is in violation of your constitution.

    One of the things I wish men to ‘wake up’ to is Common Law. It operates in all states except Luisiana because of it’s french history. If men understood Common Law, the law of the land, then they would understand they are not bound by your Constitution, nor your Legislation. They ARE bound by Common Law.

    Understanding Common Law and the fraud of the ‘legal system’ is absolutely critical for men wishing to re-assert their (equal) rights. Men and women have equal rights under Common Law, right now. The Think Free movement is advocating Common Law. Men can refuse to be subject to the biased statutes passed by the criminals in guvments. All your ‘feminist’ legislation is NOT LAW. Men can ignore this biased legislation if only they understood how Common Law works. Remember ‘ingorance of the law is no excuse’. Every man who gets worked over in Family Court (like me) is only there because he is ignorant. I educated myself. Now I am working on educating others. Mainly by pointing them to the fantastic work Robert has done, plus others.

    Men. This is really important. Many lives are at stake. It is true to say that today, right now, we can stop ALL THE ABUSE OF MEN BY BIASED COURTS in former british colonies. ALL OF IT…..One of my goals is to stop the abuse of men so as to save the lives of those many men who kill themselves when their children are stolen from them. I know what that is like. We have, right now, all the tools we need to do that. We are having our early successes. It is true to say that from this time forth, any man who kills himself from abuse in a family court died because men like us didn’t do our job properly. We didn’t educate him properly and he killed himself in ignorance. I can’t live with that. I say “No more men need die”. It’s as simple as that.

    Strangely enough, men in the ‘Mens Rights Movement’ are so committed to ‘changing the laws’ they are not willing to realise that they don’t need to. They are not willing to stop and investigate the deception of legislation and statutes prefering instead to continue to engage the ‘women and politicians’. It is my intention to ‘wake up’ some of the leaders of the mens movement to realise that if men exercise their Common Law rights then no change is needed in the Legislation and Statutes.

    It may sound strange to the men here but we have already ‘won’ the battle of the Mens Rights Movement. All that is necessary is that men are educated to the existing Common Law and how to assert their rights. Nothing needs to change. I believe many ‘Mens Rights Movements’ sites are subverted by the guvment to keep men ‘fighting for equal rights’ in legislation. I hope this one is not.






Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise