By Una Salus Victus
I have a theory on how the radicals gained momentum to become the ‘new’ feminist movement which has ultimately undermined the original tenets of the suffragists. The same scenario exists the world over. A movement gets underway and no matter the true intentions, not much headway occurs in enough areas to sustain itself for long. As such, the movement gains some ground and even gets the more important issues addressed, but inevitably fizzles out at some predictable point in the future. To combat this, some members either radicalize or radicals from outside the movement join the ranks. These members have the unique ability to fully utilize the Emotional Language (EL), as well as its’ two sub forms: Propaganda (ELP) and Suggestion (ELS). Walls that were previously unassailable are now easily breached with these women at the helm.
In his book “Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language”, Robert J. Gula breaks down the three forms of EL. I will include the ones that apply to this issue. (When I have finished this book, I’ll do a review. So far, it has proven to be a piece of literature that everyone in the movement should acquaint themselves with in order to better understand the machinations of the radfems arguments and learn effective ways to subvert them)
Emotional Language:
Appeal to pity: Just when things begin to get difficult, a lot of women will employ this tactic.
Plea for special treatment: This occurs every time a woman uses emotion to manipulate a situation in order to be treated with kid gloves (ie: crying)
Appeal to guilt: closely connected to the appeal to pity
Appeal to fear: If you don’t do X then Y will happen. Of course, Y is something dreadful
Appeal to flattery: If I’m a member of society X, then surely I have good sense; If I have good sense, then surely I will see the wisdom of a certain point of view.
Appeal to Hope: If you do X, then Y will happen; therefore, if you want Y to happen, do X.
Appeal to the Bandwagon: This one is familiar to all who have had to deal with the radfems.
Appeal to Pride or Loyalty: If you really are proud of your country, if you really want to see her prosper and grow, then you’ll do xxxx
Argumentum ad Populum: This is the appeal to the crowd, to the mob, to the gallery. Generalities, clichés, slogans, platitudes, sanctimonious claptrap, and glorification of the masses abound.
Emotional Language Propaganda:
The Bandwagon: defined above
Repetition: if you say something often enough, the masses will believe you.
Oversimplification: The propagandist takes one side of a situation and treats the one side as if it were the only side.
Name Calling: The propagandist assigns abusive epithets or uses names that have strong pejorative emotional associations to people or ideas she doesn’t like (ie: misogynist, chauvinist, pig)
Stereotyping: A variation of name-calling and oversimplification where one characteristic of a person is taken then exaggerated and regarded as the only characteristic.
The Glittering Generality: The propagandist makes broad, sweeping statements, usually ones with complex and far-reaching ramifications, but ignores the complexities and the ramifications. (ie: All men are rapists)
Slogans: The audience will remember the clever slogan without challenging the meaning of the slogan without even thinking about the meaning of the slogan (ie: Take Back the Night).
Transfer: Designed with the purpose of transferring emotions from one source to another.
Testimonial: Variation of the transfer technique. A prominent person will adopt the cause and speak on its behalf (ie: President Obama).
Statistics Without Context: Statistics with no empirical foundation. (ie: “Less than 2% of all rape claims are false).
The Manufactured Problem- The Bad Guy, The Scapegoat: The propagandist creates or exaggerates a problem, tries to convince you how serious the problem is, and then appeases you by blaming someone for that problem or by suggesting that his proposal will solve the problem. (ie: VAWA or SAFE Act).
Arrant Distortion aka Card Stacking: Information selected presents a one-sided view; sometimes data is made up or simply false. Since we do not have the true facts, there is no way any of this can be challenged. (ie: the 2% clause, yet again)
The Command: This technique is a dangerous one, for it can easily backfire. Some people are comfortable when they are being told what to do. When a command is given, it is designed to appeal to this need for authority (ie: all the women who blindly followed the radfems without considering the ramifications).
Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin were using the above tactics when they mounted that campaign equating pornography with rape. The modern examples of the above tactics can easily be found within any divorce proceeding, family court, rape accusation, or VAWA.
Emotional Language Suggestion:
The Hint: Can be painfully obvious or artfully subtle.
Selection: Selectively offering limited information on a subject that doesn’t address the whole point. If pursued no further, a belief is formed that unknowingly contradicts the reality of the situation.
Tone of Voice: This is self-explanatory.
Phraseology: Carefully phrased responses that lead others through emotion. “Saying Betty is late” vs. “Betty hasn’t arrived yet”, is the example given. They both say the same thing, however, the first statement comes across as disapproving while the second more neutral.
Word Choice: Vitriolic language anyone?
Juxtaposition: Two statements are made without any connection between them established. The mind of the listener will connect the statements despite the missing logic and, with that, an opinion will be formed.
Irrelevant Detail: Details inserted to bias an audience. The radfems have this tactic internalized.
Pompous Language: Often used to make the mundane and the trivial seem important
Image and Negative Image Words: Colorful descriptions of an event or position that is designed to capitalize upon the emotions of the audiences. (ie: defeated vs. slaughtered)
Controlling Phraseology: Leading questions and the like (ie: you feel the same way RIGHT?)
The significance of the above terms will present itself in the rest of this article.
An article titled, Sexual Harassment and the Loneliness of the Civil Libertarian Feminist appeared in ‘The Atlantic’, written by Wendy Kaminer on the 7th. In the wake of the politically driven farce that is currently happening at Yale University, it would seem that sensible dissent has occurred within some ranks of the feminist movement. Personally, I have never heard of the Libertarian Feminist but I have been made aware that they were the original members of the Second Wave and made the ill-fated decision to allow the radicals to step in and subvert the overall direction, which landed society into the bog where it currently exists. I would like to know, however, why they allowed themselves to go into near extinction? Where was their determination for their cause when they saw the direction it was headed? The writing on the wall was even in braille. Why are they so brave to stand up now, when other women have either been showing dissent all along (Christina Hoff Sommers) or have finally decided to step up? I have noticed from time to time that women will rarely stand alone for what they believe in but, instead, will nearly always follow the direction of the group. Such is the method of the Bandwagon. The numbers simply haven’t grown enough for the deserters of the movement to stand up for the wrongs they must clearly see happening around them.
She begins with an explanation on Libertarian Feminists vs. Progressive Feminism. The irony of what she is saying is that this shows how the radfems have been systematically behaving in ways that would suggest that there is no reason for women to stand up; that the oppression is still far too strong. Essentially, they are behaving in ways that suggest that they are weak, both in mind and in purpose. The only way for the weak to evolve is to become strong. Without strength, there is no valid reason to stand up.
Civil libertarian feminists have always been a political minority, but these days we seem on the verge of extinction. Reviewing the charges of sexual harassment underlying the Title IX complaint by a group of Yale students and alumnae, I can’t find feminism — at least not if feminism includes independence, liberty, and power for women. Instead I find femininity — the assumption that women are incapable of fending for themselves in the marketplace of epithets or ideas, the belief that women are rendered helpless by misogynist speech and the sexist tantrums of their male peers
A point was made in the article that points to the overall flaw in feminism; the flaw being, in my opinion, that whenever adversity presents itself, a rule must be put in place to eliminate it. All this boils down to is, instead of standing up for what they supposedly believe they are entitled to, they wish for someone to stand in their stead.
What accounts for such feminine timidity, this instinctive unwillingness or inability to talk or taunt back, without seeking the protection of university or government bureaucrats? Talking is apparently beside the point. “I just want to be able to walk back to my dorm at night without hearing all this crazy stuff from these guys,” one student complains. I sympathize (I was a young woman once, too), but “hearing crazy stuff” from people in public is part of life in a free society, a society in which you enjoy equal rights to say crazy stuff.
Mike Adams wrote an article titled Feminists are No Better than Frat Boys that addresses this point effectively.
She later poses a question and then cites an argument on behalf of the radfems. The strategy that is being applied is the Argumentum ad Populum.
What accounts for such feminine timidity, this instinctive unwillingness or inability to talk or taunt back, without seeking the protection of bureaucrats?
Putatively progressive feminists might agree, if only they regarded women as equal to the task of talking back, if only they distinguished between men who “say stuff” about women and men who “do stuff” to women. In the feminist view reflected in the Yale draft complaint, the misogynist rants of some undergraduate men (perhaps a relatively small percentage of them) is not speech. It’s a series of “dangerous,” “sex-discriminatory threats” that “intimidate” and “terrorize” women, constituting a hostile environment (or “rape culture”) that causes sexual violence.
At this point, it is worth remembering the story written in the American University student paper, The Eagle about the “Rules of Anonymous Sex”. The backlash that article received was nothing short of apocalyptic. Feminist students went on a rant. One publicly accused, via her Facebook page, males she knew of rape, while others criminally vandalized public property in an attempt to prevent the article from being read. It was a day that showed the latent anger within those of the movement. The reason it is important to remember this is due to the fact that nothing was ever done about it. Even when the female students responsible for the vandalism publicly admitted their involvement, no pursuit of justice against their actions was made; concurrently, there was no whining from the male student body or any male, for that matter, to do so. Adapt and move on. Men are strong simply because they have this ability.
The following quote starkly illustrates the difference between how men behave and how radfems invariably choose the tactics of Appeal to Pity/Guilt and the Plea for Special treatment.
The only incident of alleged harassment cited in the draft complaint that does not involve pure speech is an act of vandalism. In 2004 and 2005, fraternity brothers stole T-shirts featuring the stories of “rape survivors” from a Take Back the Night project and photographed pledges wearing the T-shirts. But, perversely, this theft to which free speech is irrelevant provokes the only expression of concern for it: “To steal these T-shirts is akin to stealing the voices of the victims,” the draft complaint melodramatically asserts — as if the victims were prevented from repeating and reclaiming their stories. If the T-shirt theft was intended to censor women, its success depended on their willingness to respond by censoring themselves.
Notice the Manufactured Problem and Transference techniques? Despite what their sisters will do to men in the name of standing up for the cause, when it is done to them, all they seem capable of doing is crying about how unfair it is that they are being treated this way or how they are oppressed and need more support. It is hard to imagine that this is the group who continually state that they are the equal of men. See, there is another side of male strength that is beginning to show itself. It occurs when a point is reached where adaptation is no longer an option and fighting back becomes much more feasible. There’s a saying about dogs and how they will only allow themselves to be kicked for so long before they either leave (MGTOW) or fight back. That none of this was considered is laughable. The women who whine about men not wanting to marry OR WORSE the ones who whine about (and even attempt to instruct others about true beauty) men not finding them attractive despite their attitude or looks compose this category.
The rest of the article deals with the denial and loss of liberty that the US is descending to the level of. Kaminer makes the point that liberty is being both unlearned and forgotten without so much as a batted eye or appreciation of its significance.
Sad to say, but feminism helped lead the assault on civil liberty and now seems practically subsumed by it. Decades ago, when Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, and their followers began equating pornography with rape (literally) and calling it a civil-rights violation, groups of free-speech feminists fought back, in print, at conferences, and in state legislatures, with some success. We won some battles (and free speech advocates in general can take solace in the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the right to engage in offensive speech on public property and public affairs). But all things considered (notably the generations of students “unlearning liberty”) we seem to be losing the war, especially among progressives.
Another ironic point in all of this is that when liberty is eroded to the point where it is either non-existent or used in convenience, the radfems will likely be the first to scream about it being denied them.
In my short time on the battlefield of the sexes I have continually noticed double standards from the side of the feminists. It defies logic how those who behave like children wish to be classified as adults. It’s as if discipline both self (ie: responsibility for one’s own actions) and over others (ie: proper child rearing) are the most misunderstood of terms. All we are left with is a stubborn narcissism that stands opposed to their very foundation. That they don’t see this, further amazes me.
In closing, I reach out to you readers. I am studying pre-law at George Mason University, yet I cannot find the reason why any of what is happening at Yale University falls under the auspices of Title IX. As I understand it, Title IX pertains to barring admission of others based upon their sex (don’t get me started on how the radfems break up every male only institution under this law, yet insist that female only places are justified). Is there one (or more) among you who can explain this to me?
References:
Mike Adams:
“Feminists are No Better Than Frat Boys”
http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/04/07/feminists_are_no_better_than_frat_boys
Robert J Gula:
“Nonsense. Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language”
Wendy Kaminer:
“Sexual Harassment and the Loneliness of the Civil Libertarian Feminist”
